Wayne Township v. Brown
| Decision Date | 09 September 1933 |
| Docket Number | 26,356 |
| Parties | Wayne Township v. Brown |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---County and Township Systems Distinct.---In Indiana poor relief is both a county and township system, each working in separate and different lines, depending upon the nature and kind of relief required p. 441.
2. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---Duty of County.---It is the duty of the county to provide a poor asylum and to maintain therein such persons lawfully settled in the county as may have been placed there by the overseers of the poor, and it may contract with charitable institutions in the state for the relief and support of the poor placed there as a public charge. p. 441.
3. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---Duty of Township Trustee.---It is the duty of the township trustee, as the overseer of the poor, to take care of the poor within his township. p. 447.
4. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---Funds---Advanced by County.---It is the duty of the county council to appropriate, and the board of commissioners to advance to the township trustee the funds necessary for the relief and burial of the poor, which funds must be accounted for and repaid to the county treasury. p 447.
5. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---Township Obligation.---While it is the duty of the county to advance funds to the township trustee for poor relief in the township, such relief is the sole obligation of the township, and the county must be reimbursed for the funds so advanced or loaned. p. 448.
6. TOWNS---Township Trustee---Contracts for Poor Relief.---Since the township trustee must provide relief for the poor, he may enter into valid contracts therefor which become the binding obligation of the township, and for which judgment may be recovered against it. p. 449.
7. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---Action on Contract---Parties.---Since relief of the poor is the sole obligation of the township not joint with the county, the county is not a proper party to an action upon a contract to provide poor relief. p. 449.
8. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---Claims---How Allowed.---There is no statutory provision for persons giving relief to the poor to file their claims in the county auditor's office and have them approved by the board of commissioners, as is the usual practice, but the commissioners should advance the money to the township trustee upon a proper showing by him and it is then the trustee's duty to pay the proper persons. p 449.
9. TOWNS---Township Trustee---Poor Relief---Aid in Excess of $15---Applicability of Statute.---Section 12266, Burns 1926, making it unlawful for a township trustee to furnish any poor person or family aid in excess of $15 until he shall have presented a statement of the case to the board of county commissioners, imposes a duty upon the trustee, violation of which is at his peril, but does not affect the validity of a claim in favor of one who has in good faith furnished aid in excess of that amount on the order of the trustee. p. 450.
10. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---Funds---County Bonds.---If there is not sufficient money in the county general fund to advance the necessary amount for poor relief to the township, then it becomes the duty of the county to borrow money for that purpose, for which it may issue the bonds of the county. p. 451.
11. PAUPERS---Poor Relief---Funds---Tax Levy---Effect of $1.50 Limit Law.---The law imposing a $1.50 tax rate limit (Acts 1932, ch. 10; Acts 1933, chs. 97 and 237) does not prevent the levy of a higher rate in case of an emergency requiring a higher rate to provide sufficient funds for poor relief. p. 452.
12. STATUTES---Title of Act---Purported Amendment---Surplusage.---Where the title of an act purports to amend previous legislation without sufficient reference to the original act and where the purported amendment is in fact original legislation, that portion of the title which purports to be an amendment should be treated as surplusage and the act sustained as original legislation if the act is limited to one subject expressed in the title. p. 454.
13. COUNTIES---Borrowing Money---Poor Relief---Title of 1933 Act.---Chapter 203, p. 981, Acts 1933, authorizing counties to borrow money in anticipation of demands for poor relief, held constitutional as original legislation notwithstanding title purports to be an amendment. p. 454.
14. COUNTIES---Borrowing Money---Poor Relief---Statutory Limitation on Tax Rate---Conflict.---Chapter 203, p. 981, Acts 1933, authorizing counties to borrow money for poor relief, held not in conflict with chapter 237, p. 1085, Acts 1933, limiting the tax rate to $1.00 outside corporate limits of cities and towns and to $1.50 inside cities and towns, but the two should be construed together. p. 455.
15. STATUTES---Separate Acts of One Session---Construction.---Statutes enacted at the same session of the legislature are to be construed in pari materia, so as to give effect to each if possible. p. 457.
16. STATUTES---Construction---Matters Considered.---In the construction of statutes when the meaning is doubtful and uncertain, courts may look to the situation and circumstances under which the same were enacted, other statutes bearing upon the same subject, whether passed before or after, and whether in force or not, as well as the history and general condition of the country. p. 457.
17. STATUTES---Construction---Judicial Knowledge of Conditions Sought to Be Remedied.---In construing poor relief statutes of 1933, court judicially knows circumstances and general condition of country at time of enactment; that poor relief was pressing problem; and that legislature intended to remedy situation, and therefore, acts should be construed harmoniously to fulfill such purpose if possible. p. 457.
18. STATUTES---General and Local Laws---Township Commissariat Act---Constitutionality.---The Township Commissariat Act of 1932, ch. 50, p. 191, Acts 1933, ch. 215, p. 1007, establishing township commissariats for relief of the poor, is not violative of Indiana Const., Art. 4, 22, forbidding local laws regulating county and township business, nor 23, providing for general and uniform operation. p. 458.
From Wayne Circuit Court; Gustave H. Hoelscher, Judge.
Action by Clarence M. Brown against Wayne Township of Wayne County, Indiana. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
Will W. Reller, for appellant.
Gardner Jessup, Tripp & Harrington and Rupe & Brown, for appellee.
This was an action by the appellee, as the assignee of a large number of accounts held by certain creditors of the appellant, which accounts were incurred by the appellant in administering the poor relief of the township.
The complaint was in five paragraphs. The appellant filed a demurrer to each paragraph of the complaint; the demurrer was overruled; the appellant refused to plead further and judgment was rendered in favor of appellee for the amount sued for.
The complaint sets out five different situations pertaining to the poor relief in so many paragraphs as follows:
First: Claims on warrants and/or vouchers issued by the township trustee, same evidencing indebtedness of the township, which have been allowed by the county commissioners and an attempt made to sell bonds to secure money to pay the claims, and which bonds failed to sell.
Second: Claims on warrants and/or vouchers issued by the township trustee, same evidencing indebtedness of township, which have been approved by the county commissioners but no attempt made to sell bonds for the reason that the procedure was deemed useless and the expense of same avoided.
Third: Claims on warrants and/or vouchers issued by the township trustee, same evidencing indebtedness of the township which have not been approved by the county commissioners and for which no bond issues were authorized to meet payment of same.
Fourth: Claims against the township not evidenced by warrants and/or vouchers, the merchandise and products being sold to the Wayne township commissariat, same being operated for the relief of the poor under provisions of chapter 50 of the Acts of 1932.
Fifth: Claims against the township not evidenced by warrants and/or vouchers, the merchandise and products being sold to Wayne township commissariat for the operation of said commissariat, which is being operated as above stated.
There are four main issues raised by the appellant as follows:
First: That the statutes provide for a method of administering poor relief, and as such the county and township are jointly responsible, and that the indebtedness for poor relief is a joint obligation of the two units.
Second: That the method provided by statute for administering poor relief is exclusive and must be followed and is a condition precedent to establishing liability upon either the township or county.
Third: That if there not be sufficient funds in the general fund of the county for advancement to the township for payment of poor relief claims, the proper officers should levy taxes to pay said claims, and if not done they should be mandated; and that the obstacle to levy taxes should be corrected by the legislature, rather than the remedy sought by the appellee.
Fourth: That the Commissariat Act is unconstitutional.
In this state the poor relief is both a county and township system, as stated by appellee, each working in separate and different lines, depending upon the nature and kind of relief that must and is required to be extended.
Prior to May 15, 1901, poor relief was a county system and duty exclusively. Revised Statutes 1881, Section 6069.
Since May 15, 1901, it has been administered by the county as to certain activities and by the township as to others.
The county has the duty to maintain a county...
To continue reading
Request your trial