Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Ind. 359

Faris v. Reynolds

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1880

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1880-05-15

<p>Railroad. — Petition for Appropriation. — Corporate Existence of Company —Surplusage.—Act of 1869 Construed. — •Township Might Vote to Take Stale. — Power of County Commissioners. — Injunction.—A petition was preented to a board of county commissioners, under the act of May 12th, 186Í, before it was amended by the act of March 17th, 1875, praying the boad to order an election upon a proposed appropriation by a township, to ait in the construction of a railroad by a railroad company named, “ a corpeation under the laws of the State of Indiana, now owned by and formitg a part of” another railroad company named, “ a corporation under tb laws of the State of Illinois ; * * * and that said appropriation,” namirj the amount, “ be levied by taxation on and from said * township *and invested in the capital■ stock of said company,” for the benefit of the ownship and taxpayers. The petition having been granted and notice .iven of the election, the appropriation voted and the tax levied, a taxpayr brought an action to enjoin its collection.</p> <p>Held, thatthe petition sufficiently shows such company to have been one organizedunder the laws of Indiana.</p> <p>Held, alsojnasmuch as the answer denied the ownership of such company by a forign company, that the petition was not vitiated by its statement of such cvnersbip.</p> <p>Held, also,hat, under the original act, the township had a right to vote upon thiproposition to make an appropriation by taking stock.</p> <p>Same. — A&gnee of Company —The fact that such petition asks that the tax to be levied shall he paid to the proper railroad company named, “ or its assigns,” does not invalidate the petition.</p> <p>Same. — Description of Ruih'oad. — T\ie notice of such election stated that the question to he voted upon was that of voting an appropriation to aid in constructing such railroad, naming it, “ by taking stock in the company constructing said railroad.”</p> <p>Held, that the railroad company named was meant 'by the words ‘‘ company constructing,” etc.</p> <p>Same. — Excessive Levy. — Enjoining Tax. — Payment or Tender of Tax Lawfully Levied. — The fact that the -levy made to raise the tax voted will raise an amount slightly in excess of the amount voted will not invalidate the tax, and will not relievo the plaintiff from the general rule, that he must first have paid or tendered the amount legally levied.</p> <p>Same. — Judgment.—Remedy.—•Appeal.—Notice of Election can not be Collaterally Attacked. — Where, upon the voting of such an appropriation, the hoard of commissioners order a tax to he levied, they thereby, determine judicially that proper notice of such election has been given, ani such fact can not he questioned in an action to enjoin the collection <f the tax. If there was not proper notice, the taxpayers' remedy was oy appeal from the order of the hoard.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ By making the order granting the prayer of the petition, the board must be taken to have decided that the company was such an one as was, under the statute, entitled to aid; and if, in this respect, it has committed an error, the decision is, nevertheless, binding and conclusive, unless appealed from, and can not be attacked collaterally, as by injunction upon the collection of the tax.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Reynolds v. Faris

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 1913

21 state decisions

1701880189019001910decided

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 →

¶1On petition for a rehearing.

Worden, J.

¶2— In this case, the appellees have filed a petition for a rehearing, insisting that the notices of the election and the certificates or proof thereof were insufficient.

¶3Since the original opinion in this case was filed, the case of The Board of Comm’rs of Lawrence Co. v. Hall, post, p. 469, was decided. In that case it was decided that “ The filing of the petition calls into exercise the jurisdiction of the board, and authorizes that body to determine, not only whether the petition is properly signed by the requisite number of freeholders of the township, but every other fact necessary to the granting of the prayer of the petition, including the due organization, under the laws of this State, of the company in whose favor aid is asked.

¶4*367“ By making the order granting the prayer of the petition, the board must be taken to have decided that the company was such an one as was, under the statute, entitled to aid ; and if, in this respect, it has committed an error, the decision is, nevertheless, binding and conclusive, unless appealed from, and can not be attacked collaterally, as by injunction upon the collection of the tax.”

¶5So, here, the board must be taken to have determined that proper notice of the election had been given, and that all steps required by law had been taken, in order to the granting of the petition. This decision of the board can not be attacked collaterally. If any error or mistake was comniitted by the board, an appeal, .provided for by law, would have furnished an ample remedy.

¶6The petition for a rehearing is overruled.

/70/ind/359 · .json · Public domain