Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 Ind. App. 75

Workman v. Bent

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 17, 1909

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1909-12-17

<p>Appeai,. — From Boards of Commissioners. — “Aggrieved’’ Persons. — • Taxpayers. — A resident, citizen and taxpayer of a county is entitled to appeal as an “aggrieved” person, under §6021 Burns 1908. §5772 R. S. 1881, giving sucli person a right of appeal from an allowance by the board of commissioners.</p>

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1917

4 state decisions

Relies on State ex rel. Workman v. Goldthait

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1909-12-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This is an appeal taken from an order of allowance by the Board of Commissioners of the County of AVabash, whereby said board allowed the sum of $2,189.38 to appellant for discovering and placing upon the tax duplicate taxes on sequestered property, under a contract with said board for such services. Appellee filed an affidavit of *76appeal, under §6021 Burns 1908, §5772 R. S. 1881. Appellant moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit, which motion was overruled, and this ruling is presented as reversible error.

¶2The affidavit shows that appellee is a resident, citizen and taxpayer of said county; that the board of commissioners had allowed the claim, describing it; that said claim was filed under a contract with said appellant to search for sequestered property and cause the same to be placed on the tax duplicate for taxation; that said contract was illegal and unauthorized in law, and that the commissioners, in making the allowance, acted without authority in the premises.

¶3The defect urged against this affidavit is that it does not show that appellee is “aggrieved.” The contention cannot be sustained. One who is compelled to pay taxes to pay an illegal claim against the county, certainly has a grievance, and the motion to dismiss was properly overruled.

¶4The controlling question in this case, being the right of the board of commissioners to enter into the contract for the ferreting out of sequestered property for the purpose of taxation, is identical with the question decided in State, ex rel., v. Goldthait (1909), 172 Ind. 210, and upon the authority of that case this case is affirmed.

/45/indapp/75 · .json · Public domain