Rowe v. Bateman

• Decision Date: 24 October 1899
• Parties: ROWE et al. v. BATEMAN et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

153 Ind. 633

54 N.E. 1065

ROWE et al.

v.BATEMAN et al.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 24, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Dekalb county; Albert O. Marsh, Judge pro tem.

Proceeding by George Rowe and others against John W. Bateman and Isaac Hague, county commissioners, for impeachment and removal from office for official misconduct. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Dismissed.

A. E. Davis, F. S. Roby, D. M. Link, W. A. Ketcham, Atty. Gen., and Merrill Moores, for appellants. Zollars & Worden, McClelland & Garwood, and J. E. & J. H. Rose, for appellees.

JORDAN, C. J.

On April 6, 1897, appellants instituted this proceeding in the lower court against the appellees, John W. Bateman and Isaac Hague, then county commissioners of Dekalb county, for the purpose of impeaching them for official misconduct, and thereby removing them from office, under section 35 of an act of the legislature approved March 8, 1897, entitled “An act for the impeachment and removal from office of public officers.” Acts 1897, p. 278. The complaint disclosed that appellees were elected commissioners of said county in 1894, and that the official term of Hague expired on the 3d day of December, 1897, and that of Bateman on the 2d day of December, 1898. All of the alleged acts of omission and commission, upon which this proceeding is based, are expressly charged, in the complaint or accusation filed by appellants, to have occurred prior to the enactment of the above-mentioned statute. Appellees filed written objections to the sufficiency of each specification or grounds of impeachment, and these objections were by the court sustained to each and all of said specifications; to which ruling of the court appellants excepted, and, refusing to further plead, judgment was rendered that they take nothing by their action. From this judgment they have appealed, and assigned error on the court's ruling in sustaining the objections of appellees to their complaint.

The only question discussed by the learned counsel representing the respective parties is the right, under the act in question, to remove the appellees from the office in controversy for the alleged misconduct in office occurring prior to the passage of said act. It is contended, upon the part of counsel for appellees, that to give section 35 of this statute a retroactive effect, so as to subject appellees as public officials to the penalty therein provided, for acts done before the statute was passed, would make the law ex post facto in its operation, and thereby render it antagonistic to both the state and federal constitutions. The sole object of this proceeding, as we have seen, was to secure the removal of the appellees from the office of county commissioners, which each held at the time the action was instituted. The record fully reveals the fact that the respective terms of the appellees have expired pending this appeal; that of Hague having terminated December 3, 1897, and that of Bateman on December 2, 1898. As we may assume, therefore, that these appellees, as former officials, at the close of their respective terms, surrendered their offices to duly chosen and qualified successors, and from said time ceased to be incumbents thereof, hence, if we were to decide adversely to appellees upon the questions discussed, and reverse the judgment of the lower court and remand the cause for further proceedings, there could be nothing of a practical result thereby gained, as appellees are no longer incumbents of the office from which it...