State ex rel. Board of Commissioners v. Jamison
| Decision Date | 11 December 1895 |
| Docket Number | 17,547 |
| Citation | 42 N.E. 350,142 Ind. 679 |
| Parties | The State, ex rel. Board of Commissioners, etc., v. Jamison, Auditor |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Tippecanoe Superior Court.
The judgment is affirmed.
C Johnston and W. H. Johnston, for appellant.
C. E Lake and J. B. Milner, for appellee.
This was an application, in the name of the State, by the board of commissioners, of the county of Montgomery, in the lower court, for a writ of mandate against appellee, auditor of Tippecanoe county, to compel him to issue a warrant upon the treasurer of his county, for the payment of money to reimburse Montgomery county for certain expenses and charges paid by it, and growing out of the trial of the cause of the State of Indiana v. William F. Pettit, charged with murder, and tried in the latter county upon a change of venue from the former.
It appears from the facts alleged in the complaint, that one W C. Wilson, an attorney at law, previous to the change of venue of said cause, had been appointed by the Tippecanoe Circuit Court to assist the State's attorney in the prosecution of Pettit; that after the change to the Montgomery Circuit Court, the judge thereof appointed George P. Haywood, an attorney, to assist in the prosecution. Haywood and Wilson were allowed by the Montgomery Circuit Court for their services in the lower court, the sum of $ 1,500.00, and as to that amount Montgomery county has been reimbursed by the county of Tippecanoe. Pettit was tried convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned in the State's prison for life. From this judgment he appealed to the Supreme Court, and the trial court assigned Haywood to assist the State in said appeal, and for his services therein allowed him in addition, the sum of $ 2,000.00. The amount therefore in controversy is the two thousand dollars allowed and paid to Haywood for his said services in behalf of the State in said cause in the Supreme Court. The court sustained a demurrer to the alternative writ and application, and rendered its final judgment denying the writ and for cost against the relator. The action of the court in sustaining the demurrer is assigned as error.
The main question, which the parties to this appeal argue and seek thereby to present, is the validity of the allowance made by the Montgomery Circuit Court to Haywood and paid by that county upon the court's order for his service in said cause on the appeal to the higher court. Appellee contends that the court had no right or power to allow Haywood compensation for such services out of the public funds, neither under the appointment made assigning him to assist in the prosecution in the lower court, nor under the subsequent appointment, assigning him to assist the State in defense of the appeal in this court. The question thus sought to be presented for our decision is one of much interest to the public, but as the judgment must be affirmed for the reason, that the relator has not invoked the proper proceedings to secure reimbursement for the claim in question, we are not required to decide it.
In the case of Trant, Aud., v. State, 140 Ind. 414, 39 N.E. 513, this court held that an action of mandamus will not lie against the auditor of a county to compel him to issue a warrant upon the county treasurer for the charges and expenses incurred and paid by another county, for a cause therein tried, upon a change of venue from the one wherein the cause of action arose.
This court in the case cited, said:
It was further said: "Under these rules, Grant county must file her claim with the auditor of Blackford county, to be by him presented to the board of county commissioners, as required by section 7845, R. S. 1894, section 5758, R. S. 1881."
The holding in that case is decisive of this appeal, and it follows that the relator in this action cannot enforce collection of its claim in question, by a writ of mandate against the auditor of Tippecanoe county; but must present it to the board of commissioners of that county, as provided by section 7845, R. S. 1894, section 5758, R. S. 1881. The commissioners of that county can then, as provided by sections 7847 and 5759 of the statutes cited, examine into the merits of the claim, and allow it in whole or in part as they may find it to be just and owing. In the event the board should disallow the claim in whole or in part, the relator as claimant therein, if it should feel aggrieved by the action of the board of commissioners, can exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Market, s. 1--673A106
...latter officer has the exclusive control and management of the case upon appeal.' The State ex rel. Board of Commissioners, etc. v. Jamison, Auditor (1895), 142 Ind. 679, at 684, 42 N.E. 350, at 351. 'When an appeal in a criminal cause, whether taken by the State or by the defendant, reache......
-
Bd. of Com'rs of Randolph Cnty. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Henry Cnty.
...prove himself entitled substantially to every claim and to all the redress which he seeks in his writ. In a similar case, State v. Jamison, 142 Ind. 679, 42 N. E. 350, the court, declining to decide the question as to the validity of the allowance or any part thereof, held that a proceeding......
-
State v. Sutherlin
...of the Attorney General, and by virtue of the statute he becomes the exclusive representative of the state therein. State ex rel. v. Jamison, 142 Ind. 679, 42 N. E. 350, and cases there cited; State v. Sopher, 157 Ind. 360, 61 N. E. 785. An assignment of errors, however, is one of the essen......
-
State v. Sutherlin
... ... that James W. Dunbar, one of the two jury commissioners ... appointed by the Floyd Circuit Court on December 15, 1904, ... was, ... of the State therein. State, ex rel., v ... Jamison (1895), 142 Ind. 679, 42 N.E. 350, and cases ... there ... in dispute been selected by the board of commissioners of ... Floyd county, appellee might, with equal ... ...