Case ID: ind_175/html/0709-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Monks, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

City of Huntington v. Brown.
    [No. 21,915.
    Filed May 31, 1911.]
    From Huntington Circuit Court; Samuel E. Goolc, Judge.
    Petition by Mary Brown against the City of Huntington, for a reassessment of benefits in a street improvement proceeding. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1405 Bums 1908, Acts 1901 p. 590.)
    
      Appeal dismissed.
    
    
      Emmett O. King, for appellant.
    
      Kenner & Kenner, for appellee.
   Monks, J.

Appellee filed a verified petition under tlie second provision oí section 111 oí the act of 1905 (Acts 1905 p. 219, §8710 Burns 1908), asking the appointment of three apiwaisers to reassess the benefits to her real estate on the ground that the amount assessed against it for the improvement of a street of the city “was excessive,” etc. Appraisers were appointed who reduced the amount of appellee’s assessment. Judgment for costs was rendered against appellant.

It has been held by this court that no appeal lies in such proceeding. City of Seymour v. Jordan (1909), 173 Ind. 717; Randolph v. City of Indianapolis (1909), 172 Ind. 510; Wilson v. City of Indianapolis (1909), 172 Ind. 719; City of Indianapolis v. Barnett (1909), 172 Ind. 720; Cook v. City of Butler (1909), 172 Ind. 720. Upon the authority of the cases cited the appeal is dismissed.