Myers v. Sell, No. 28366.

Docket NºNo. 28366.
Citation81 N.E.2d 846, 226 Ind. 608
Case DateNovember 09, 1948
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

226 Ind. 608
81 N.E.2d 846

MYERS et al.
v.
SELL et al.

No. 28366.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 9, 1948.


Ditch proceedings to which Ralph R. Myers and others and Webster D. Sell and others were parties. From an adverse decree Ralph R. Myers and others appeal.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part and remanded with instructions.

GILKISON and EMMERT, JJ., dissenting.

For dissenting opinion, see 82 N.E. 81.

[81 N.E.2d 846]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Newton County; Victor K. Roberts, Special judge.
J. Edward Barce and Ralph Bower, both of Kentland, Thomas F. O'Mara, of Terre Haute, and Emmett M. LaRue, of Rensselacr, for appellants.

George F. Sammons, of Kentland, and Cope J. Hanley, of Rensselaer, for appellees.


YOUNG, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the same decree which was involved in the original action in this court entered State of Indiana v. Roberts, as Special Judge of the Newton Circuit Court. Opinion and mandate in that case is reported in Ind.Sup., 76 N.E.2d 832, and reference may be made to the opinion in that case for recital of facts and record not stated here. In that action the State sought a writ of prohibition to stop further proceedings in the drainage project involved in the case before us as against the State

[81 N.E.2d 847]

Highway Commission of Indiana and to prohibit the respondents in said action from carrying out that part of the decree in said proceedings which requires the construction of a new bridge at the cost of the State Highway Commission of Indiana at the point where the drain involved crosses State Highway No. 41. We declined to interfere with the execution of the decree in the cause before us, except that part thereof which orders the State Highway Commission to build a bridge on Highway 41 over the ditch or drain authorized by said decree.

Many of the questions of law presented and contentions made in the case before us were presented and made in the original action referred to and decided therein, and we feel disposed to follow in the matter before us the conclusions reached in our opinion in that case.

The appellants have filed with us an assignment which sets up 27 errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court. Some of these have been waived by failure to present them in the propositions, points and authorities set out in the brief. It is not urged in the brief that there is no evidence to show that the alteration and repair of the ditch will be of public utility, nor to sustain the assessments made, nor that the benefits do not exceed the cost, not including the cost of the bridge. Those presented boil down to only a few fundamental questions. The principal question which is presented by the brief is that the court had no jurisdiction over the State of Indiana, and that the State of Indiana was a necessary party, and that therefore the court was without jurisdiction of the action. We considered this proposition in our opinion in State v. Roberts, supra, and upon the authority of that case and for the reasons therein stated we hold that the court had jurisdiction of the drainage proceeding involved in the matter before us.

The statute under which the proceeding here involved was brought reads in part as follows:

‘(a) The owner or owners of five (5) per cent in acreage of the land affected by and assessed for the construction of any public drain under any law of this state shall have the right to file a petition and therein allege:

‘(1) That such public drain, or any part thereof, being out of repair, is not sufficient to properly perform the drainage for which it was designed and intended, and may be more economically repaired, by tiling and covering, or by increasing the size of the tile and changing the course, or extending the length thereof, or by removing the tile and converting the drain into an open ditch, or by changing the course, deepening, widening or extending the length of an open drain, or by making any other change therein which would be of public utility; or


* * *

‘(b) No petition filed in conformity with the provisions of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section shall contemplate the increasing of the tile, the average deepening and widening or the extension more than ten (10) per cent of the original plans and specifications.’ § 27-120, Burns' 1948 Repl.

Appellants assert that the ditch here involved was originally an open ditch; that later this open ditch was converted into a tile ditch, and that this converted tile ditch is now sought to be reconverted into an open ditch. They contend that the foregoing statute requires that there be an allegation in the petition filed herein that the new open ditch will not increase the average depth and width or length of the original open ditch more than 10 per cent of the original plans and specifications therefor, and that without such an allegation the court was without jurisdiction to proceed.

It has been decided many times by this court that jurisdiction of the subject matter is the power to hear and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Associates Inv. Co. v. Claeys, No. 71A04-8804-CV-131
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 8, 1989
    ...proceedings or the correctness of the decision. It is only dependent upon the subject matter to which it relates. Myers v. Sell (1948), 226 Ind. 608, 81 N.E.2d 846, 82 N.E.2d 81; Brown [v. State], supra [ (1941), 219 Ind. 251, 37 N.E.2d 73]; Brendanwood Neighborhood Association v. Common Co......
  • State ex rel. Indiana Dept. of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court, No. 28858
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 22, 1952
    ...that this court in the recent cases of State v. Roberts, 1948, 226 Ind. 106, 76 N.E.2d 832, 78 N.E.2d 440, 446 and Myers v. Sell, 1948, 226 Ind. 608, 81 N.E.2d 846, 82 N.E.2d 81, has held that the state may be brought into drainage proceedings where its highways are affected, and that, ther......
  • Adoption of H.S., Matter of, No. 1-1184A296
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 10, 1985
    ...proceedings or the correctness of the decision. It is only dependent upon the subject matter to which it relates. Myers v. Sell (1948), 226 Ind. 608, 81 N.E.2d 846, 82 N.E.2d 81; Brown, supra; Brendanwood Neighborhood Association v. Common Council of Lebanon (1975), 167 Ind.App. 253, 338 N.......
  • Board of Trustees of Town (Now City) of New Haven v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 578S91
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 19, 1978
    ...case, absent specific and timely objections to the jurisdiction of such particular case. As stated by this court in Myers v. Sell (1948), 226 Ind. 608 at 613, 81 N.E.2d 846 at 847: "It has been decided many times by this court that jurisdiction of the subject matter is the power to hear and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Associates Inv. Co. v. Claeys, No. 71A04-8804-CV-131
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 8, 1989
    ...proceedings or the correctness of the decision. It is only dependent upon the subject matter to which it relates. Myers v. Sell (1948), 226 Ind. 608, 81 N.E.2d 846, 82 N.E.2d 81; Brown [v. State], supra [ (1941), 219 Ind. 251, 37 N.E.2d 73]; Brendanwood Neighborhood Association v. Common Co......
  • State ex rel. Indiana Dept. of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court, No. 28858
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 22, 1952
    ...that this court in the recent cases of State v. Roberts, 1948, 226 Ind. 106, 76 N.E.2d 832, 78 N.E.2d 440, 446 and Myers v. Sell, 1948, 226 Ind. 608, 81 N.E.2d 846, 82 N.E.2d 81, has held that the state may be brought into drainage proceedings where its highways are affected, and that, ther......
  • Adoption of H.S., Matter of, No. 1-1184A296
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 10, 1985
    ...proceedings or the correctness of the decision. It is only dependent upon the subject matter to which it relates. Myers v. Sell (1948), 226 Ind. 608, 81 N.E.2d 846, 82 N.E.2d 81; Brown, supra; Brendanwood Neighborhood Association v. Common Council of Lebanon (1975), 167 Ind.App. 253, 338 N.......
  • Board of Trustees of Town (Now City) of New Haven v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 578S91
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 19, 1978
    ...case, absent specific and timely objections to the jurisdiction of such particular case. As stated by this court in Myers v. Sell (1948), 226 Ind. 608 at 613, 81 N.E.2d 846 at 847: "It has been decided many times by this court that jurisdiction of the subject matter is the power to hear and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT