State ex rel. Cicero Township v. Finney
| Decision Date | 16 October 1890 |
| Docket Number | 15,456 |
| Parties | State, ex rel. Cicero Township, v. Finney et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Tipton Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
W. R Oglebay and C. N. Pollard, for appellant.
R. B Beauchamp, W. Mount, G. H. Gifford and J. M. Fippen, for appellees.
This action rests upon the official bond of a township trustee.
The cause was put at issue, and then by agreement of the parties referred to a master commissioner to hear the evidence and report his finding to the court.
The commissioner, after having heard the evidence, made his finding and reported the same in accordance with the order of submission.
On motion of the appellant, and without objection from the appellees, certain parts of the report or finding were eliminated therefrom, and thereafter the appellant filed exceptions to the finding of the commissioner, which were overruled by the court, and an exception reserved.
The report of the commissioner finds that the trustee had overdrawn from the bridge fund the sum of $ 2,234.20; from the dog fund, $ 313.63.
The report further finds that the trustee had overpaid for the benefit of the township fund, $ 1,468.21; from the road fund, $ 731.07, and that there was due him for services, $ 450.
The appellees moved the court to render judgment in their favor for the said sums overpaid, and the appellant moved the court to render judgment in its favor for the amounts found to be overdrawn, with ten per cent. penalty.
The court sustained both motions, and rendered judgment accordingly.
The appellant moved for a modification of the judgment so far as it was in favor of the appellees, which the court overruled, and the proper exception was saved.
Counsel for the appellant contend that the finding of the commissioner did not entitle the appellees to the judgment rendered for them for the reason that it failed to show that the appellees, or either of them, had furnished the money from their private funds (as alleged in their answers) with which to make the over-payments, but that such over-payments were the result of a misapplication of moneys belonging to one fund to the benefit of another. It is further contended that the finding fails to disclose that the over-payments were made under such circumstances as to entitle the appellant to a credit therefor under any state of the issues.
In answer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wells
...testimony of the witness Daugherty, hence the admission of his evidence was not prejudicial (Thorndike v. Boston, 1 Met. 242-249; State v. Finney, 125 Ind. 427; Bothwell Milikon, 104 Ind. 162; Krug v. Davis, 101 Ind. 75; Anderson v. Cole, 26 Ind. 329; McDonald v. Moore, 32 Ill.App. 142; Dun......
-
Indiana Shovel & Supply Co. v. Castillo
...Lesh v. Bailey (1912), 49 Ind.App. 254, 262, 95 N.E. 341, 344 (Transfer denied). See Also: State ex rel. Cicero Township v. Finney et al. (1890), 125 Ind. 427, 428, 429, 25 N.E. 544. 2 I.L.E., Appeals, § 601, pp. 555, The court rightly concluded from the evidence and inferences therefrom, t......