State ex rel. Indiana Dept. of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court, No. 28858
| Docket Nº | No. 28858 |
| Citation | 231 Ind. 245, 108 N.E.2d 185 |
| Case Date | October 22, 1952 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 185
v.
PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT et al.
[231 Ind. 246] J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., Fred A. Wiecking, Deputy Atty. Gen., Nicholas W. Sufana, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Obed T. Kilgore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
James R. White, Winamac, for respondents.
[231 Ind. 247] GILKISON, Judge.
A petition for the construction of a drainage ditch in Pulaski County, Indiana, was filed in the respondent court by a number of separate real estate owners of the county. The action was a special statutory proceeding under Section 4 et seq. of Chapter 264, Acts 1933 and amendments thereof, being § 27-104 et seq., Burns' 1948 Replacement.
Among the real estate mentioned in the petition as affected by the proposed improvement is the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section twenty-four, and the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section thirteen, all in township thirty-one north, range two west and containing eighty acres. This real estate belongs to the state of Indiana.
In due time the Indiana Department of Conservation appeared specially and filed its plea in abatement to the proceeding, averring among other things, as follows:
(1) That the lands afore described belong to the state of Indiana.
Page 186
(2) That this real estate is under the care, custody and control of the Conservation Department, and is not swamp lands.
(3) That there is no statute consenting that the state may be made a party to a drainage proceeding where the affected lands belonging to the state are under the care, custody and control of the Indiana Department of Conservation; and no statute consenting that such a department may be made a party in such proceedings. That there is no statute providing for the payment of any assessment against such lands. That the respondent court does not have and cannot acquire jurisdiction in this case over lands owned by the state, in the absence of a consent statute.
The plea in abatement was put at issue in the trial court, and upon trial thereof by the court on November [231 Ind. 248] 14, 1951, a finding and judgment was rendered that the action should not abate, the plea was overruled and the state was ordered to plead over. The cause is numbered 14024 in respondent court.
Relator filed its verified petition for a writ of prohibition in this court on December 3, 1951 in proper form, averring among other things that the respondent court is without jurisdiction in said cause No. 14024 pending in its court, in so far as it may affect the state's real estate, and the assessment of benefits or costs and expenses against it in the action, and praying for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting it from acting further in the cause in so far as the state's real estate is concerned.
We issued the temporary writ.
A response has been filed, in which respondents assert:
(1) That they have full and complete jurisdiction in the drainage proceeding noted, and (2) that respondents' remedy in the matter is by an appeal if and when an assessment has been made and established against the lands of the state.
A single question is presented for our determination, thus: Do the constitution and laws of the state of Indiana authorize citizens of the state to make the state a party to a drainage ditch proceeding seeking to affect its park lands no part of which are swamp lands and make them subject to the payment of assessments of benefits and payment of costs of the proceedings?
On this subject the state constitution provides:
'Provision may be made, by general law, for bringing suit against the State, as to all liabilities originating after the adoption of this Constitution; but no special act authorizing such suit to be brought, or making compensation to any person [231 Ind. 249] claiming damages against the State, shall ever be passed.' Art. 4, § 24, State Constitution.
We find that the legislature has passed a general law authorizing suits to be brought against the state by persons having or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harp v. Indiana Dept. of Highways, No. 41A04-9012-CV-570
...a party defendant. Wright at 299, 245 N.E.2d at 842 (citing State ex rel. Indiana Dep't of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court (1952), 231 Ind. 245, 251, 108 N.E.2d 185, 187; State v. Young (1958), 238 Ind. 452, 151 N.E.2d 697, 700). Indiana's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act does not ma......
-
State v. Larue's, Inc., No. 29742
...authority for making the State a party defendant. State ex rel. Indiana Department of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court, 1952, 231 Ind. 245, 251, 108 N.E.2d 185; State v. Young, Ind.1958, 151 N.E.2d 697, 700. However, there is no reason why the state's officers and agents may not be a p......
-
State v. Rendleman, No. 37S00-9202-CV-79
...recognized the existence of sovereign immunity earlier in this century. State ex rel. Dept. of Conservation v. Pulaski Cir.Ct. (1952), 231 Ind. 245, 249, 108 N.E.2d 185, 186; City of Indpls. v. Indpls. Water Co. (1916), 185 Ind. 277, 291, 113 N.E. 369, 373; State v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (19......
-
Wright v. Kinnard, No. 368A44
...authority for making the State a party defendant. State ex rel. Indiana Department of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court, 1952, 231 Ind. 245, 251, 108 N.E.2d 185; State v. Young, Ind.1958, 238 Ind. 452, 151 N.E.2d 697, 700. However, there is no reason why the state's officers and agents ......
-
Harp v. Indiana Dept. of Highways, No. 41A04-9012-CV-570
...a party defendant. Wright at 299, 245 N.E.2d at 842 (citing State ex rel. Indiana Dep't of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court (1952), 231 Ind. 245, 251, 108 N.E.2d 185, 187; State v. Young (1958), 238 Ind. 452, 151 N.E.2d 697, 700). Indiana's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act does not ma......
-
State v. Larue's, Inc., No. 29742
...authority for making the State a party defendant. State ex rel. Indiana Department of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court, 1952, 231 Ind. 245, 251, 108 N.E.2d 185; State v. Young, Ind.1958, 151 N.E.2d 697, 700. However, there is no reason why the state's officers and agents may not be a p......
-
State v. Rendleman, No. 37S00-9202-CV-79
...recognized the existence of sovereign immunity earlier in this century. State ex rel. Dept. of Conservation v. Pulaski Cir.Ct. (1952), 231 Ind. 245, 249, 108 N.E.2d 185, 186; City of Indpls. v. Indpls. Water Co. (1916), 185 Ind. 277, 291, 113 N.E. 369, 373; State v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (19......
-
Wright v. Kinnard, No. 368A44
...authority for making the State a party defendant. State ex rel. Indiana Department of Conservation v. Pulaski Circuit Court, 1952, 231 Ind. 245, 251, 108 N.E.2d 185; State v. Young, Ind.1958, 238 Ind. 452, 151 N.E.2d 697, 700. However, there is no reason why the state's officers and agents ......