Nichols v. Lehman

• Decision Date: 15 October 1908
• Docket Number: No. 6,231.,6,231.
• Citation: 42 Ind.App. 384,85 N.E. 786
• Parties: NICHOLS v. LEHMAN et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

42 Ind.App. 384

85 N.E. 786

NICHOLS

v.LEHMAN et al.

No. 6,231.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Oct. 15, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jay County; J. F. La Follette, Judge.

George W. Nichols appeals from a judgment of the circuit court affirming a decision of J. F. Lehman and others, county commissioners, refusing a liquor license. Affirmed.

Olds & Neizer, for appellant. Merryman & Sutton, for appellees.

HADLEY, J.

On the 11th day of May, 1905, appellant gave notice that he would apply for a license to sell liquor in a certain building in the town of Berne, Monroe township, Adams county, and at the regular June session of the board of commissioners he duly filed said application. Three days before the meeting of said board in said session a remonstrance was filed, signed by a majority of the legal voters of said township; the remonstrance being in the following words: “We, the undersigned, legal voters of the township of Monroe, in said county and state, hereby respectfully represent that we are opposed to the granting of a license to George W. Nichols, who has given notice of his intention to apply therefor, for the sale of intoxicating liquors in said township.” The names to this remonstrance had been signed by Fred Rohrer, who signed said names by virtue of powers of attorney executed to him by the parties whose names were signed to the remonstrance. The said powers of attorney were given to said Rohrer between October 20, 1902, and February 8, 1905. Upon the hearing, license was refused appellant, on account of the filing of said remonstrance, by the commissioners. This action was appealed from, and on a change of venue said case was transferred to the Jay circuit court, where the decision of the board of commissioners was upheld by said circuit court.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether said Rohrer had authority to sign said remonstrance by virtue of said powers of attorney at the time he so signed the same; it being contended that the act of the General Assembly of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 7, c. 6), known as the “Moore Amendment,” which became effective after all of said powers of attorney were executed, repealed the law authorizing remonstrances under which said powers of attorney were given, and thereby divested said Rohrer of the authority given him by said instruments, and that the signing of a remonstrance after the passage of said act was the exercise of another and different power from that...