Smith v. Clifford
| Decision Date | 19 December 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,419 |
| Citation | 99 Ind. 113 |
| Parties | Smith et al. v. Clifford |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Hamilton Circuit Court.
F. M Trissal, for appellants.
L. O Clifford, T. J. Kane and T. P. Davis, for appellee.
Appellee brought this suit against appellants to collect a ditch assessment. This case has heretofore been before this court, and is reported in 83 Ind. 520. The judgment was then reversed, for the reason that no copy of the assessment was made a part of the complaint.
The complaint in the case under consideration appears to have been amended and filed February 6th, 1883, after the reversal of the former judgment, and is based upon a copy of the assessment. There was a demurrer overruled to the complaint, and the only assignment of error is based upon that ruling.
The first objection urged against the complaint is, that it does not show that the county board adjudged that the contemplated work was of public utility. This action is not founded upon the judgment establishing the work, but upon the assessment made by the appraisers. It was not necessary that such judgment should be a part of the complaint. The transcript of the proceedings before the county board, filed as an exhibit with the complaint, shows the filing of the petition, the giving of proper notice, the appointment of the appraisers, and their assessment of the damages and benefits. Sufficient is shown to give the county board jurisdiction of the case, and in such cases all irregularities before the county board are waived by not appealing from their judgment, and their proceedings are conclusively presumed to be correct, and can not be attacked in this collateral way. Cauldwell v. Curry, 93 Ind. 363; Town of Cicero v. Williamson, 91 Ind. 541; Foster v. Paxton, 90 Ind. 122; Featherston v. Small, 77 Ind. 143; Marshall v. Gill, 77 Ind. 402.
It is further objected that the complaint does not show in what county or State the proposed ditch or the lands to be affected by its construction are situate. The termini of the ditch, and the section, township and range of the lands to be affected thereby, are definitely stated.
The notice of the pendency of the petition states that the lands to be affected by the ditch, describing them, were situate in Jackson township, Hamilton county, Indiana. The county board took jurisdiction of the case. This court will take notice of the boundary lines of Hamilton county; and where ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Applegate v. Taylor
...jurisdiction of the persons upon the giving of the notice of the pendency of the petition. Caldwell v. Curry, 93 Ind. 363; Smith v. Clifford, 99 Ind. 113; v. Slabaugh, 69 Mich. 484. (4) The published notice of the pendency of the petition was in conformity to what the statute required at th......
-
Miller v. Hodges
...consistent with the true facts as to the ownership of the property. Garden City Sand Co. v. Miller, 157 Ill. 225, 41 N. E. 753; Smith v. Clifford, 99 Ind. 113; Bryan v. School, 109 Ind. 367, 10 N. E. 107. This is clearly the tendency of decision in this state. Langham v. Gray (Tex. Civ. App......
-
Shields v. Pyles
... ... Co. v ... Pierce (1884), 95 Ind. 496; Adams v ... Harrington (1888), 114 Ind. 66, 14 N.E. 603; [180 ... Ind. 77] Smith v. Clifford (1884), 99 Ind ... 113, 115; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v ... Hixon (1885), 101 Ind. 337; Sever v ... Lyons (1897), 170 Ill. 395, 48 ... ...
-
Tewksbury v. Howard
... ... State, ex rel., 115 Ind ... 529, 18 N.E. 26; Bryan v. Scholl, 109 Ind ... 367, 10 N.E. 107; Stockwell v. State, ... ex rel., 101 Ind. 1; Smith v ... Clifford, 99 Ind. 113, holding that location may be ... inferred from the residence of the parties, the place of ... acknowledgment and the ... ...