Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Ind. 53

Rhode v. Davis

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1850

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1850-05-29

<p>Boards of county commissioners are Courts of limited and special jurisdiction, and their records must show, to make them evidence of the validity of the acts of the Courts, that the requisitions of the statutes under which they acted were complied with, so far as necessary to give them jurisdiction.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““. . . We regard the board of county commissioners as a Court of special and limited jurisdiction, whose records must show, to make them evidence of the validity of the acts of the Court, that the requisitions of the statutes under which the Court acted were strictly complied with, so far as was necessary to give jurisdiction. . . .””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Jones v. State Ex Rel. Indiana Livestock Sanitary Board

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1850-05-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1960

5 state decisions

30185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Perkins, J.

¶1Davis sued Rhode in an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. Rhode defended on the ground that the locus in quo was a public highway, and that he was acting as supervisor in working the same; and, to sustain his defence, gave in evidence a transcript of certain proceedings had before the county commissioners, ordering said highway to be opened. The transcript did not show that the notice of the application for the highway, required by statute to be given, or that any notice of the proceeding to lay out and establish the same, was given, and there was no proof, aliundi, of the fact. The Court held the proceedings a nullity. We regard the board of county commissioners as a Court of special and limited jurisdiction, whose records must show, to make them evidence of the validity of the acts of the Court, that the requisitions of the statutes under which the Court acted were strictly complied with, so far as was necessary to give jurisdiction. See Corwin v. Merritt, 3d Barbour’s (N. Y.) Sup. C. R. 341, and cases cited.

Per Curiam.

¶2The judgment is affirmed with costs.

/2/ind/53 · .json · Public domain