Rutherford v. Davis
| Decision Date | 06 May 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,334 |
| Citation | 95 Ind. 245 |
| Parties | Rutherford v. Davis |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Washington Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed.
J. A Zaring, for appellant.
S. B Voyles, H. Morris and A. B. Collins, for appellee.
The answer of the appellee alleges that he was the duly elected, qualified and acting supervisor of roads; that before the occurrence of the alleged trespass complained of by the appellant, a petition for the location of a highway was filed by twelve freeholders, six of whom were residents of the immediate vicinity of the highway then proposed to be located; that the petition was duly acted upon by the board, and such proceedings had as resulted in the following order: "And the board find that the said petition and notice are in proper form and sufficient, and that twelve of the petitioners are freeholders, and that six of them reside in the immediate vicinity of the route of the proposed highway, and that due notice of the time of the presentation of said petition, as required by law, had been given." The answer also alleges that after the report of the viewers had been made as ordered, an order was made establishing the highway, and directing that it be opened and kept in repair; that the auditor of the county issued and delivered to the township trustee a certified copy of the judgment of the board of commissioners; that the latter issued and delivered to the appellee, as supervisor, an order commanding him to open the highway as directed; that, acting under and pursuant to this order, and in his official capacity of supervisor, he proceeded to open the way, not through an enclosure of a year's standing, and that all of the acts complained of were done by him in his official capacity, and by virtue of the authority conferred upon him by the judgment of the board of commissioners.
The statute invests the board of commissioners with general jurisdiction of the matter of laying out and opening highways, and the board in this instance had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the petition. The petition is shown to be such as invoked the exercise of their jurisdiction in this particular instance, and there was notice. The judgment of the board was, therefore, rendered in a case where it had jurisdiction, and the rule is firmly established that where the tribunal has jurisdiction collateral attacks are fruitless. Cauldwell v. Curry, 93 Ind. 363; Coolman v. Fleming, 82 Ind. 117; Stoddard v. Johnson, 75 Ind. 20; Featherston v. Small, 77 Ind. 143; Simonton v. Hays, 88 Ind. 70; Town of Cicero v. Williamson, 91 Ind. 541; Muncey v. Joest, 74 Ind. 409; Reynolds v. Faris, 80 Ind. 14; Schmidt v. Wright, 88 Ind. 56. The answer, of which we have given a synopsis, shows a case in which the board of commissioners had jurisdiction, and the judgment can not be collaterally impeached.
It is a familiar rule that a ministerial officer charged with the duty of executing process is protected by that process, if it was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and is regular on its face. The order issued to the supervisor was, as the answer shows, issued by a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and was regular on its face, and the officer was, therefore, not bound to look behind it. Ewing v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Hazzard v. Heacock, 39 Ind. 172; Noland v. Busby, 28 Ind. 154; Davis v. Bush, 4 Blackf. 330; Caldwell v. Kenworthy, 31 Ind. 238; Hill v. Haynes, 54 N.Y. 153; Chegaray v. Jenkins, 5 N.Y. 376.
The answer shows an order which would have protected the supervisor, if, in executing it, he had obeyed the law. It is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Rippey
...so that we think the point now made is not maintainable. Stoddard v. Johnson, 75 Ind. 20; Coolman v. Fleming, 82 Ind. 117; Rutherford v. Davis, 95 Ind. 245; Forsythe v. Kreuter, 100 Ind. Pickering v. State, etc., 106 Ind. 228, 6 N.E. 611, and cases cited p. 231; Lowe v. Ryan, 94 Ind. 450; B......
-
Robinson v. Rippey
...board, so that we think the point now made is not maintainable. Stoddard v. Johnson, 75 Ind. 20;Coolman v. Fleming, 82 Ind. 117;Rutherford v. Davis, 95 Ind. 245;Forsythe v. Kreuter, 100 Ind. 27;Pickering v. State, 106 Ind. 228, and cases cited on page 231, 6 N. E. Rep. 611; Lowe v. Ryan, 94......
-
Bd. of Com'rs of Knox Co. v. Montgomery
...v. City of Logansport, 76 Ind. 549;City of Logansport v. LaRose, 99 Ind. 117;Town of Cicero v. Williamson, 91 Ind. 541;Rutherford v. Davis, 95 Ind. 245. It has been often held that where a case is presented invoking a judicial decision by the board, that its decision cannot be collaterally ......
-
Hartlep v. Cole
...rules of law that an officer is protected by an execution regular on its face and issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Rutherford v. Davis, 95 Ind. 245, vide auth. p. 247. The writ, therefore, the constable, and it was not necessary for him to produce the judgment on which it issued......