The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-03
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Proceedings in the Various Courts of
Record Yesterday.
Full Abstract of the Opinions
by the Judges of the Supreme Court
Work in the Local Courts.
Supreme Court-Oct. 1.
Hon. W. E. Niblack, Chief Justice.
DRAINS AND DIrCHEs-rowNsHIp FUND.

1Ch " ~ -NAphhSN ChfoA NNNAS
DRAINS AND DITCHES-TOWNsHIP FUND.
10, 924. George w. Ingerman VS.. Noblesville
Township. hamilton &. G.
Niblack, c. Jon petition for rehearing. The
controlling object which the Legislature had in
view in the enactment OF section 4,274, X. s.,
was the keeping in repair OF a class OF dltohes
and drains which had been constructed by a
system of taxation. and upon the theory that
they were IN some way prOmOtive OF the puhilc
interest. The township trustee, as a public
ofhcer, was required to use the general township
fund in making the necessary repairs. SO much
OF the section as enioined this public duty upon
the several township trustees is separate and
distinct from and complete without the pro
vision which follows for the reimbursement OF
the general township fund, and may be enforced
Notwithstanding the inValidity of the provision
for reimbursement. If the act OF March 8, 1883,
does not make adequate provision for the reim-
oursement of the township 1t is still within the
power of the Legislature to supply the omission.
Petition Overruled.
Observation-Disclosures.
1897. William stauter vs.. Isaac Hollowell.
Warren c. C.
Bicknell, C.-Can a plea to the Jurisdiction
OF the court over the person be admitted after a
full appearance without objection and after the
determination of an issue of law by the court!
Under the code, as before, a full appearance
without objection admits the jurisdiction of the
court over the defendants person as fully as an
q 79r id. n7; 6 n 7. T r. a5S: S 3 BlRf. 2 aS5 T. 8 ID ID. iP S.; So So
Ind. 1879. A demurrer is a full appearance. 40
Ind. 80; 10 id. 374; AZ id. 200. A special APP
pearance for the purpose Of demurring was
never allowed. Petition for rehearing over
ruled.
CoMPLAINT-CoNTRACT-BREACH.
1884. James N. Thornton vs. Lycurgus
Burr, Henry c. G.
HOwk, J.-Appellee's complaint cOunts upon
a written agreement between appellee, appel
iant and a third person, but it AYERS no breach
OF this agreement on the part of appellant. 1t
shows also that the agreement was not per-
formed by any OF the parties and was incapable
OF execution. II therefore stated no cause Of
action against appellant. Judgment reversed.
PUBLIC OFFICER LOST FUNDS -REIMBURsE-
MENT.
9,661. Matthias NJ. Mount vs.. ex. rel, Richey.
Scott {. C..
Elliott, J.-Richey was township trustee and,
as such, deposited funds of the township in a
private bank, through the failure of which the
money was lost aud Richey reimbursed the
township. Upon petition of the taxpayers, the
LEGISLATURE passed an act directing the town
snip trustee to refund it. The trustee refused.
anu Klcney obtained a writ OF mandamus
against hlln. Although such acts may be vicious
in their tendency, courts cannot overthrow
them for such a reason. Q0l U. s.. 400 Stat
utes must stand unless repugnant to some ex-
press provision of the constitution. IS Blkf,
299.). The Legislature may provide for the pay.
ment of claims not enforcible bv a civil action.
Q3 N. Y, 143; "a Wend., Go; 10 N. y, 1l6; 90
U. s., 644) The granting of relief to individual
claimants Is not within the provision OF the con-
stltutlon, which prohibits the enactment of spe-
clai laws. Each claim stands on It's own merits,
and a general law could not he made applicable.
In such cases special laws may be enacted Re-
lmbursing a public officer for the loss of public
funds cannot be deemed an appropriation to
private purposes. $50 Ohio ST., 227J Judgment
aft med.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ERROR.
7,245. Charles Rawson VS.. Fred. B. Pratt ct al.
HOwlE, Jon petition for rehearing, appel
lants entire case is stated, by way of recOup-
ment, in the fourth aud fifth paragraphs o thelr
answer, and to these the appellees' demurrers,
for want of facts, were overruled The appellees
assigned these rulings of the court as cross
errors. AS these cross-errOrs were well as
signed, ii is immaterial what errors Of law Oc-
CURED at the trial. for they could not possibly
harm the appellants. as Ind, 5O7) These
paragraphs were bad, and the court erred in over
ruling the appellees' demurrer to them. Neither
stated "A good defense to the action. Petition