State ex rel. Good v. John
| Decision Date | 20 March 1908 |
| Docket Number | 21,147 |
| Citation | 84 N.E. 1,170 Ind. 233 |
| Parties | State, ex rel. Good, v. John, Trustee, et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Boone Circuit Court; Samuel R. Artman, Judge.
Action by the State of Indiana, on the relation of George Good against Francis M. John, as township trustee, and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Shelby & Worley, for appellant.
B. S Higgins, Roy W. Adney and T. J. Terhune, for appellees.
This proceeding was brought by the relator to compel the advisory board of Marion township, Boone county, by writ of mandamus to perform an alleged duty.
A demurrer for want of facts to the application and alternative writ of mandamus was sustained, and, the relator refusing to amend, judgment was rendered in favor of appellees. The action of the court below in sustaining said demurrer is assigned as error.
The General Assembly by §§ 9590-9598, 9600-9602 Burns 1908, Acts 1899, p. 150, Acts 1901, p. 415; §§ 6618, 9585 Burns 1908, Acts 1903, p. 431, Acts 1905, p. 33 created the township advisory boards and gave them their powers. Advisory Board, etc., v. State, ex rel. (1906), 166 Ind. 237, 76 N.E. 986; Advisory Board, etc., v. State, ex rel. (1905), 164 Ind. 295, 301, 73 N.E. 700.
As it is proposed in this case to erect a graded school building for the use, and at the expense, of one school township, the proceeding is not governed by the provisions of the statutes concerning the erection of joint school buildings, or joint graded school buildings, by more than one school corporation, or concerning the erection of a graded high school building by a single township.
The alternative writ of mandate commanded that said advisory board "proceed without delay and make the necessary and proper appropriation * * * to pay the expenses of constructing a new graded school building," or, that said advisory board "proceed without delay and make and enter of record, as required by law, an order authorizing and directing the trustee of said township to issue township warrants or bonds for the purpose of borrowing money and creating a fund with which to pay the expenses of building said new graded school building," or "show cause why the same should not be done." It will be observed that said writ required said advisory board to make an appropriation to pay the expense of constructing said building, or to make an order authorizing the township trustee to issue township warrants or bonds for the purpose of borrowing money to pay the expense of constructing said building. It has been held that an alternative writ which commands an officer to do several acts in the alternative, as to pay a judgment, or to issue bonds for its payment, or to levy a tax for its payment, the acts being distinct in their nature and the writ designating neither one in particular, a motion to quash the writ will be sustained. This is because the mandatory clause of the writ should expressly and clearly state the precise thing which is required of the defendant. High, Extraordinary Legal Rem. (3d ed.), § 539; 2 Spelling, Injunctions (2d ed.), § 1698; Tapping, Mandamus, * 327; State, ex rel., v. City of Milwaukee (1867), 22 Wis. 397; State, ex rel., v. Trustees, etc. (1875), 61 Mo. 155, 159; People, ex rel., v. Brooks (1870), 57 Ill. 142.
The rule is well settled in this State, that including in the mandatory clause of the alternative writ a command for greater relief than the relator is entitled to under the allegations of the petition and writ renders the same insufficient as against a demurrer or a motion to quash. State, ex rel., v. Connersville Nat. Gas Co. (1903), 163 Ind. 563, 568, 71 N.E. 483, and cases cited; Applegate v. State, ex rel. (1902), 158 Ind. 119, 123, 63 N.E. 16, and authorities cited; Trant v. State, ex rel. (1895), 140 Ind. 414, 421, 39 N.E. 513, and authorities cited; High, Extraordinary Legal Rem. (3d ed.), §§ 539, 548; Tapping, Mandamus, * 327.
To render the application and alternative writ sufficient to withstand a demurrer for want of facts, it must also appear therefrom that it is the officer's duty and that he has the power to perform the act sought to be enforced. Advisory Board, etc., v. State, ex rel. (1906), 166 Ind. 237, 76 N.E. 986; Weir v. State, ex rel. (1903), 161 Ind. 435, 68 N.E. 1023; Logansport, etc., R. Co. v. Groniger (1875), 51 Ind. 383; Hoxie v. County Commissioners, etc. (1845), 25 Me. 333; City of Bangor v. County Commissioners, etc. (1895), 87 Me. 294, 32 A. 903; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Randolph (1859), 24 Tex. 317; Arberry v. Beavers (1851), 6 Tex. 457, 55 Am. Dec. 791; Watkins v. Huff (1901), (Tex. Civ. App.), 63 S.W. 922, 924, and cases cited; 2 Spelling, Injunctions (2d ed.), § 1644; 26 Cyc. Law and Proc., 433-437, and note 22, p. 437. It was said in Hoxie v. County Commissioners, etc., supra, on page 334:
When the alleged duty is in reference to the appropriation or payment of money by a public officer or body, facts must be averred showing that there is money which could be legally appropriated for that purpose. Advisory Board etc., v. State, ex rel. (1906), 166 Ind. 237, 239, 76 N.E. 986; Board, etc., v. State, ex rel. (1901), 156 Ind. 550, 554, 555, 60 N.E. 344; Board, etc., v. State, ex rel. (1889), 42 Kan. 327, 22 P. 326; State v. Town of Somerset (1890), 44 Minn. 549, 47 N.W. 163; Hall v. People, ex rel. (1870), 57 Ill. 307, 316; 26 Cyc. Law and Proc., 439, note 28. It was held by this court in Advisory Board, etc., v. State, ex rel., supra, page 239, that the advisory board of a township has no power to make an appropriation for the construction of a schoolhouse, unless there are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State ex rel. Good v. Johns
-
Hogston v. Bell
...not pointed out by appellee in his brief. Kraus v. Lehman, 170 Ind. 408, 414, 83 N. E. 714, 84 N. E. 769, 15 Ann. Cas. 849;State v. John, 170 Ind. 233, 238, 84 N. E. 1. [11] It is our conclusion that a contract made for a lawful purpose and which requires, as an incident to its performance,......
-
Hogston v. Bell
... ... the time of his death was a resident of Grant County in the ... State of Indiana, and I hereby agree to pay to the said ... Joseph E. Bell for ... proceeded under it in good faith. The courts do not inquire ... into the motives of the parties in ... ...
-
State ex rel. Barnett v. State Board of Medical Registration And Examination
... ... Superior Court of Marion County (71,377); Vinson Carter, ... Action ... by The State of Indiana, on the relation of John" A. Barnett, ... against The State Board of Medical Registration and ... Examination. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff ... \xC2" ... good or bad, for the reason that it is settled law in this ... State that a bad answer is good enough for a bad complaint, ... and there can be no ... ...