Peters v. Griffee

Citation108 Ind. 121,8 N.E. 727
PartiesPeters and others v. Griffee and others.
Decision Date30 October 1886
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Madison circuit court.

Henry & Ryan and Geo. M. Ballard, for appellants. E. P. Schlater, for appellees.

Elliott, J.

The petition of the appellants for a ditch was filed on the eighteenth day of March, 1884, and on the seventh day of the following April was docketed, and referred to the drainage commissioners. On the second day of June of that year the report of the commissioners was filed, and on the first day of September following the appellees moved to dismiss the proceedings. To this motion the appellants filed an answer, alleging, in substance, that on the eleventh day of March, 1884, the petitioners posted notices in three of the most public places in the county; that on the eighteenth day of that month they filed their petition, and noted thereon the first day of April as the time for hearing it; that on that day the petitioners appeared, “and, as the answer alleges, made it appear to the court that notice had been given,” that, no objection being entered, an order was made fixing time and place for the meeting of the commissioners; that the commissioners made a report, which was approved; that the contract for constructing the ditch was let to Charles McKee and others; that work was done thereunder to the value of $2,000, and a great amount of the assessments had been collected prior to the filing of appellees' motion. It is further alleged that the appellees had actual notice of the filing of the petition, and of the view and inspection of the lands; that they made no objection until after the work had been done, and a great part of the assessments collected.

It is quite clear that, if the attack made upon the proceedings were a collateral one, the notice would be sufficient to sustain the proceedings. McMullen v. State, 105 Ind. 334; S. C. 4 N. E. Rep. 903; Young v. Sellers, 106 Ind. 103; S. C. 5 N. E. Rep. 686; Pickering v. State, 106 Ind. 228; S. C. 6 N. E. Rep. 611; Brosemer v. Kelsey, 106 Ind. 105; S. C. 7 N. E. Rep. 569. But we cannot regard the present attack as a collateral one, for we think an attack by motion filed in the same cause must be deemed a direct one.

While we regard the attack as a direct one, still we are of opinion that the court erred in dismissing the proceedings. There was here notice, although a defective one, of the proceedings, and there was actual knowledge of the filing of the petition, and of the proceedings under it, and also knowledge that money was expended on the faith that the proceedings were valid. We think that, under these facts, it must be held that appellants are not in a condition to defeat the proceedings on the ground that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Martindale v. Town of Rochester
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 24 November 1908
    ... ... 140; ... Muncey v. Joest [1881], 74 Ind. 409; ... City of Logansport v. Uhl [1885], 99 Ind ... 531, 50 Am. Rep. 109; Peters v. Griffee ... [1886], 108 Ind. 121, 8 N.E. 727; Taber v ... Ferguson [1887], 109 Ind. 227, 9 N.E. 723; ... Ross v. Stackhouse [1888], ... ...
  • Webb v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 3 February 1904
    ...622, 35 N. E. 1006, 37 N. E. 16;Field v. Noblett, 154 Ind. 357, 56 N. E. 841;Fleener v. Claman, 112 Ind. 288, 14 N. E. 76;Peters v. Griffee, 108 Ind. 121, 8 N. E. 727;Center School Tp. v. State, 150 Ind. 168, 49 N. E. 961;International B., etc., v. Watson, 158 Ind. 508, 64 N. E. 23; 8 Ency.......
  • Webb v. The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 3 February 1904
    ... ... 622, 35 N.E. 1006; Field v. Noblett, 154 ... Ind. 357, 56 N.E. 841; Fleener v. Claman, ... 112 Ind. 288, 14 N.E. 76; Peters v ... Griffee, 108 Ind. 121, 8 N.E. 727; Center School ... Tp. v. State, ex rel., 150 Ind. 168, ... 49 N.E. 961; International, etc., ... ...
  • Field v. Drainage District No. 1 of County of Gem in State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 5 May 1928
    ...v. Board of Supervisors, 172 Iowa 30, 152 N.W. 58; Hamilton v. Vermillion Special Drain. Dist., 146 Ill.App. 84; Peters v. Griffee, 108 Ind. 121, 8 N.E. 727; Taber v. Ferguson, 109 Ind. 227, 9 N.E. Caldwell v. Village of Mountain Home, 29 Idaho 13, 156 P. 909.) Assessments having been impos......
  • 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