Windfall Manuf'g Co. v. Emery

• Decision Date: 05 November 1895
• Citation: 142 Ind. 456,41 N.E. 814
• Parties: WINDFALL MANUF'G CO. v. EMERY et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

142 Ind. 456

41 N.E. 814

WINDFALL MANUF'G CO.

v.EMERY et al.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 5, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Hamilton county; R. R. Stephenson, Judge.

Appeal by the Windfall Manufacturing Company from a judgment annexing certain territory to the town of Windfall. Affirmed.

Blacklidge, Shirley & Moon, for appellant. W. O. Dean and W. H. Dean, for appellees.

MONKS, J.

This was a proceeding for the annexation of certain territory to the town of Windfall, brought before the board of commissioners of Tipton county. Appellant appeared before the board, and filed a remonstrance. A trial was had, which resulted in a finding and judgment that said territory be annexed. Appellant appealed to the circuit court. The venue was changed to the Hamilton circuit court, where the cause was tried by a jury, a verdict returned against appellant, and, over a motion for a new trial, judgment was again rendered that said territory be annexed. The only error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.

One of the causes assigned for a new trial questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. It has been held by this court that, as the statute does not prescribe what reasons for annexation shall be set forth in the petition, that question is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the authority passing on the same. Catterlin v. City of Frankfort, 87 Ind. 45;Elston v. Board, 20 Ind. 272;Chandler v. City of Kokomo, 137 Ind. 295, 36 N. E. 847. The sufficiency of such reasons being within the sound discretion of the authority to which they are addressed, this court cannot review that discretion unless, possibly, it has been plainly abused. Chandler v. City of Kokomo, supra. The reasons set forth in the petition for annexation in this case have not been questioned in this court by an assignment of error. It is urged, however, by appellant, that in considering the evidence we should disregard certain of the reasons for annexation stated in the petition, because they are insufficient. If we could review the exercise of discretion as to the sufficiency of the reasons stated for annexation when it had been palpably abused,-a question we do not determine,-we would be compelled to adjudge that there was no such abuse in this case. On the contrary, the sufficiency of the reasons stated is sustained by this court. Catterlin v. City of Frankfort, supra; Stilz v. City of Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515. The objections urged by appellant to the reasons stated for annexation could only be reached by a motion to make more specific. This being true, there is evidence which supports the verdict, and under the well-settled rule we cannot weigh the evidence.

The court below permitted a witness on behalf of appellees to testify over the objection of appellant that “he was appellant's bookkeeper from March, 1891, until the 1st of June, 1892, and that...