Young v. The Board of Commissioners of Tipton County

• Decision Date: 03 April 1894
• Docket Number: 17,239
• Citation: 36 N.E. 1118,137 Ind. 323
• Parties: Young v. The Board of Commissioners of Tipton County et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

36 N.E. 1118

137 Ind. 323

Young v. The Board of Commissioners of Tipton County et al

No. 17,239

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 3, 1894

From the Tipton Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed.

A. C Ayres and A. Q. Jones, for appellant.

G. H Gifford and C. H. Gifford, for appellees.

OPINION

Hackney, J.

The questions in this case arise upon the act of March 3, 1893, Acts 1893, p. 194, which is as follows:

"Whereas, The contract of court houses was commenced and entered upon before the first day of January, 1893, by the board of commissioners of certain counties in the State of Indiana, and the ordinary revenues, together with one per centum on the assessed valuation of the taxable property in such counties, are insufficient for the completion of the same; therefore,

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That in counties where such contracts for such construction of such court houses were entered into before the first day of January, 1893, the board of commissioners of such counties be, and they are, hereby authorized and empowered to issue and sell bonds to an amount not to exceed two per centum on the assessed valuation of the taxable property of such counties for such purpose; and such bonds, when so issued, negotiated and sold, are hereby declared to be valid and binding on such counties so issuing the same: Provided, however, That nothing in this act shall be construed so as to authorize such commissioners to issue and sell such bonds in excess of the constitutional limit, as fixed by article 13 of the constitution of the State of Indiana."

Section two declares an emergency.

The appellant sought to enjoin the issuance and sale of bonds under the authority of this act, and the lower court sustained a demurrer to his complaint.

It is insisted, for the appellant, that the act is unconstitutional as in violation of the inhibition of section 22, article 4, of the constitution of this State, against the passage, in certain enumerated cases, of local and special laws.

This section enumerates seventeen distinct cases in which local and special laws shall not be passed, but which of these cases includes the subject-matter of the act in question, counsel have not indicated, and we have not been able to learn.

As supporting the appellant's contention, counsel cite the case of Thomas v. Board, etc., 5 Ind. 4, but that case involved not only a consideration of section 22, but also section 23 of said article 4 of the constitution, which provides that in each of the cases enumerated in section 22, the laws shall "be general, and of uniform operation throughout the State."

It is perfectly clear that section 23, so far as it relates to the inhibition of section 22, can have no application to the case before us, since the act of 1893 does not fall within any of its enumerated cases. However, section 23 provides, also that "all laws shall be general, and of uniform operation throughout the State," "where a general law can be made applicable," and if counsel intended, by the citation of Thomas v. Board, etc., supra, to insist that the act before us violates this provision of the constitution we have but to suggest that the case, with reference...