Timmons v. Pine Sch. Tp.

• Decision Date: 16 March 1899
• Citation: 22 Ind.App. 93,53 N.E. 242
• Parties: TIMMONS v. PINE SCHOOL TP.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

22 Ind.App. 93

53 N.E. 242

TIMMONS

v.PINE SCHOOL TP.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

March 16, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Benton county; S. P. Thompson, Judge.

Action by Edgar W. Timmons, administrator, against Pine school township. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Fraser & Isham, for appellant. Stuart Bros. & Hammond and Thos. E. Merrick, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

Transferred from the supreme court. Appellant avers in his complaint that for some years before August 5, 1895, appellant's decedent was appellee's trustee; that on and before that date appellee became and was indebted to divers and sundry persons for work, labor, and material used in and about the erection, maintenance, and repair of school houses, grounds, and properties of the school township, and also for appliances, supplies, and necessary things for the use of the common schools of the township, and also for coal, janitor's, and director's services, and to divers and sundry teachers for attendance on township institutes, in the sum of $1,600; that the same was a legal charge against the township, that the revenues were not sufficient to pay such indebtedness, and that the decedent, as trustee, paid the same with his own money; that on August 5, 1895, the decedent reported these debts, and the payment thereof, and the vouchers therefor, to the board of county commissioners, as required by law; that the account was audited, examined, and approved by the board, and by the successor in office and trust of decedent; that on settlement of the account there was found due decedent $1,600; that decedent–in his lifetime–and appellant demanded such sum, which has been refused. Appellee filed a motion asking that appellant be required to show in his complaint the names of the persons to whom appellee was indebted on the date named for work, labor, and materials used in and about the erection, maintenance, and repair of school houses, grounds, and properties of the township, and for appliances, supplies, and necessary things for the use of the common schools, and for coal, janitor's, and director's services, and for teachers on attendance at institutes; giving the specific amount of each indebtedness, and when the same was incurred, and when paid, and the necessity for advancing the money. This motion was sustained, and, appellant refusing to amend, judgment was rendered in appellee's favor. Sustaining this motion, directing appellant to amend, and rendering judgment in appellee's favor against appellant for costs, have been assigned as error by appellant. Appellee has assigned cross error, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

If a complaint is indefinite or uncertain, the defect will not be reached by demurrer, but must be by motion to make more specific. Railway Co. v. Wynant, 100 Ind. 160. And overruling such a motion is prejudicial error, if the defect pointed out in the pleading is a material one. Elliott, App. Proc. § 665, and cases cited; Hawley v. Williams, 90 Ind. 160; Railroad Co. v. Chester, 57 Ind. 297. If appellant has a good cause of action, it is because the parties to whom he paid the money sought to be recovered held valid claims against the township. The approval of the trustee's report by the board of commissioners was not an adjudication of these various claims. It was an adjudication of the fact that he had paid them, but it was not an adjudicationof the validity of the claims, binding upon the township. The board is not clothed with power to estop the township from inquiring into the correctness of the trustee's reports. The report, in the absence of fraud or mistake, is...