Shideler v. Martin

• Citation: 192 Ind. 574,137 N.E. 528
• Decision Date: 13 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23862.,23862.
• Parties: SHIDELER, County Auditor, v. MARTIN.
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

192 Ind. 574

137 N.E. 528

SHIDELER, County Auditor,

v.MARTIN.

No. 23862.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 13, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wells County.

On petition for rehearing. Overruled.

For former opinion, see 136 N. E. 1.

EWBANK, J.

Counsel for appellant have cited cases in support of the proposition that, where the circuit court has rendered final judgment in an action for the enforcement or protection of private rights and the redress of private wrongs, an appeal will lie to the Supreme or Appellate Court under the provisions of the Civil Code, even though the action was brought under a special statute, unless the special statute contains provisions which necessarily exclude such right of appeal. Thus an action of quo warranto to question defendant's right to hold a public office may be appealed. Robertson v. State ex rel., 109 Ind. 79, 87, 10 N. E. 582, 643. So may an action for a divorce. Evans v. Evans, 105 Ind. 204, 210, 5 N. E. 24, 768. And one for the construction of a public drain. Clarkson v. Wood, 168 Ind. 582, 586, 81 N. E. 572. And one for the contest of a will. Crawfordsville, etc., T. Co. v. Ramsey, 178 Ind. 258, 271, 98 N. E. 177. And a proceeding to obtain the appointment of a guardian for a person alleged to be of unsound mind may be appealed by such person, though it has been held that the petitioner cannot appeal. Berry v. Berry, 147 Ind. 176, 179, 46 N. E. 470;State ex rel. Brooking v. Branyan, 30 Ind. App. 502, 66 N. E. 464. But in all of these cases, and in others prosecuted under special statutes, in which appeals under the general provisions of the Civil Code were permitted, the action was commenced in a court or tribunal that had judicial powers, by filing a complaint or petition against adversary parties, on which issues were submitted to the court for decision.

No authorities have been cited, and we know of none, which support appellant in his contention that the Civil Code gives a right of appeal from the circuit court to the Supreme Court in a matter which reached the circuit court by appeal from the summary action or decision of a board or officer exercising a special limited jurisdiction in a special proceeding under a statute providing for an appeal to the circuit court, without any provision that pleadings be filed or issues formed, or that a further appeal might be taken. The following additional authorities support the original opinion on this point: Board v. Pinnacle Gold M. Co., 36 Colo. 492, 85 Pac. 1005;Pilgrim Consolidated Co. v. Board, 20 Colo. App. 311, 78 Pac. 617;State ex rel. v. Smith (Ind. Sup.) 127 N. E. 545, 546;Lafayette, etc., R. Co. v. Butner, 162 Ind. 460, 462, 70 N. E. 529;Public Service Com. v. State, 184 Ind. 273, 282, 111 N. E. 10;State ex...