Wherry v. Backelman

• Decision Date: 30 December 1955
• Docket Number: No. 18738,18738
• Citation: 126 Ind.App. 136,130 N.E.2d 777
• Parties: Harold B. WHERRY et al., Appellants, v. John BACKELMAN, Trustee of Union Civil Township, Whitley County, Indiana, et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 777

130 N.E.2d 777

126 Ind.App. 136

Harold B. WHERRY et al., Appellants, v. John BACKELMAN, Trustee of Union Civil Township, Whitley County, Indiana, et al.

No. 18738.

Appellate Court of Indiana, In Banc.

Dec. 30, 1955.

Arthur H. Fruechtenicht, William H. Fruechtenicht, Fort Wayne, for appellants.

Gates & Gates, Columbia City, for appellees.

KENDALL, Judge.

Appellants filed their petition in the lower court for a declaratory judgment praying for an order determining whether the Auditor of Whitley County, Indiana, acted correctly in counting certain names on a petition to abandon a school, when the names, as executed, did not appear in the same form on the tax records of the township as they were executed on the petition.

Appellants contend that the tax duplicates of Union Township, Whitley County, Indiana, contained the names in the following manner: James L. Springer, Homer Studebaker, Jackson A. Rex, Glois J. Smith, Robert A. Diebold, Beulah Diebold, Helen B. Auer, Youna Walker, Tessa C. Harris, Ethel N. Maxwell, Virginia A. Bell, Maryellen A. Junk, William A. Hazen, Hilda A. Hazen and Eula Belle Steele, and that in order for such petitioners to be valid signatures they contend that the signatures must be signed in the same manner which they appear on the tax duplicates. The signatures being questioned appeared on the petition in the following manner: Jim Springer, H. J. Studebaker, Jack Rex, Mrs. Ross Smith, R. A. Diebold, Mrs. Robert Diebold, Mrs. Harman Auer, Mrs. Arland Walker, Mrs. Frank Harris, Mrs. Frank Maxwell, Mrs. Lee Bell, Mrs. Edward A. Junk, W. A. Hazen, Mrs. W. A. Hazen and Mrs. Donald Steele.

There is no question but what the persons signed the petition in the manner as immediately above-indicated. Appellants only question whether the different individuals signed their names correctly to be counted a valid signature on the petition.

After the filing of appropriate answers by appellees, the cause was submitted to the court for trial who specially found, among other things, that 'all names appearing on said petition except the signature of 'Philip LaFavor' were valid and binding signatures of resident taxpayers of said Township and should be counted in determining whether or not said petition containing a majority of the resident taxpayers * * * as requested by Section 1, Chapter 118 of the 1953 Acts of the General Assembly'. Judgment was rendered accordingly in favor of appellees.

The stipulation further provided, 'That the name of Jim Springer is James L. Springer, and that the name James L. Springer appears on the tax duplicate'. A similar stipulation was made for each of the above-named individuals. It is apparent, therefore, that by the stipulation introduced appellants admitted that the persons signing the petition were the same and identical individuals whose names appeared on the tax duplicate.

Appellants' motion for new trial was to the effect that the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law. On appeal the specification that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence is of no avail to appellants, a negative verdict having been rendered adverse to appellants. Wilson v. Rollings, 1938, 214 Ind. 155, 14 N.E.2d 905; Estate of Granger v. Gosport Cemetery Ass'n, 1954, 124 Ind.App. 686, 118 N.E.2d 386, 119 N.E.2d 437.

The assignment of error is the overruling of the motion for new trial.

Chapter 118, Sec. 1 of the Acts of the 1953 Indiana General Assembly, being Sec. 28-2807, Burns' 1948 Replacement, 1955 Pocket Supp., provides as follows:

'Whenever a majority of the resident taxpayers of any school township or school corporation shall petition the trustee or board of trustees of such school township or school corporation for the abandonment of any high school * * *, it shall be the duty of the trustee of such school township or the board of trustees * * * to comply with such petition and to abandon such high school * * *.'

In 38 Am.Jur., Sec. 11, p. 601, it is said:

'In other words, a contract or obligation may be entered into by a person under any name he may choose to assume. The law is chiefly concerned with the identity of the individual, and when that is ascertained and clearly established, the act will be binding on him and on others.'

It is a general rule that a person may be designated in a legal proceeding by the name by which he is commonly known, even though this does not constitute his true name. Schoonhoven v. Gott, 1858, 20 Ill. 46, 71 Am.Dec. 247; Laflin & Rand Co. v. Steytler, 1891, 146 Pa. 434, 23 A. 215, 14 L.R.A. 690. The object and purpose of describing a person in such a petition such as this is for identification purposes.

Similar questions have been considered by the Supreme Court of this state. In the case of Cooper v. Harmon, 1908, 170 Ind. 113, 83 N.E. 704, 705, the Supreme Court had under consideration a motion to dismiss a highway petition filed before a Board of County Commissioners on the grounds that the petition was signed by the surnames and initials. In...