State ex rel. Horne v. Beil
| Decision Date | 28 May 1901 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. HORNE v. BEIL et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Wells county; E. C. Vaughn, Judge.
Mandamus proceedings by the state of Indiana, on the relation of Brose S. Horne, against John E. Beil and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Dailey, Simmons & Dailey and Sharpe & Sturgis, for appellant.
Mandamus to compel the school trustees of the city of Bluffton to enforce a rule or order adopted by the county and city boards of health requiring all children to be vaccinated before being permitted to attend any of the schools of the county or city respectively. The amended complaint is in two paragraphs, substantially the same, and in them the relator sets forth, in effect, that he is the duly elected, qualified, and acting secretary of the Wells county and city of Bluffton boards of health; that on September 4, 1899, the board of commissioners of Wells county, acting in the capacity of county board of health, as a precautionary measure against the introduction and spread of smallpox in the county, adopted a rule or order providing that all children desiring to attend the schools of the county should present to their teachers a certificate of successful vaccination, from a regular physician, before being permitted to attend any of such schools; that the relator, as such secretary, was instructed by the county board to see that such rule was enforced by the school officers of the county; that he served a copy of said order upon the appellees, they at the time being school trustees of the city of Bluffton; that in November, 1899, there were many cases of smallpox in the adjacent county of Allen, and no quarantine against persons from the infected community in Allen county coming into the city of Bluffton; that one Rupright and his wife had smallpox at their home in Adams county, one-half mile from the east line of said Wells county; that Rupright had passed through the city of Bluffton while suffering from incipient stages of said malady, and while so afflicted had spent a night at the town of Ossian, in said Wells county; that while so suffering Rupright came in contact with divers citizens of the city of Bluffton, and while at Ossian school teachers and many other persons were near him, and exposed to the disease, and, after arriving at his home, 27 persons, most of whom were residents of Wells county, were in his sick room, and thereby greatly exposed; that the relator, as health officer of the county and city of Bluffton, having investigated and verified the foregoing facts, communicated the same to the county and city boards of health, and, in view of the imminent danger of said contagious disease being transmitted to the inhabitants of the city of Bluffton, the common council of said city, sitting as the said board of health, adopted a resolution for the prompt enforcement of the said rule and order of the county board of health, whereupon the relator, in compliance with said resolution and order, served further notice of said order upon the appellees, as trustees of the school city of Bluffton, and directed and demanded them to instruct the teachers under their jurisdiction to carry said rule and order into effect; that appellees failed and refused, and still fail and refuse, to so instruct their teachers, or to enforce said rule and order in the schools, whereby, etc. Appellees' separate demurrer to each paragraph of the complaint was sustained, and, appellant refusing to amend, judgment was rendered against him for costs. The sufficiency of the complaint to support a peremptory writ of mandate is the only question presented by the record. Appellees have filed no brief.
Mandamus is the proper remedy to compel an officer to perform a public duty clearly imposed by law. Wampler v. State, 148 Ind. 557, 47 N. E. 1068, 38 L. R. A. 829;Manor v. State, 149 Ind. 310, 49 N. E. 160;State v. Kamman, 151 Ind. 407, 51 N. E. 483;Wood v. State, 155 Ind. 5, 55 N. E. 959. By Acts 1891, p. 15 (Burns' Rev. St. 1894, § 6711 et seq.), the state board of health shall have the general supervision of the health and life of the citizens of the state. They shall adopt rules and by-laws, subject to and in harmony with the statutes in relation to the public health, to prevent outbreaks and the spread of contagious and infectious diseases. They shall make sanitary investigations and inquiries concerning the causes of diseases, and especially of epidemics. They shall have power to regulate the plumbing, drainage, water supply, and disposal of excreta, heating and ventilation of any public buildings. By section 6718 the commissioners of each county, the mayor and common council of each city, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial