The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-24
AGAINST TAx FERRETS
IMPORTANT RULING BY JUDGE PALM
Err IN A JASPER COUNTY CASE.
Damage Suit for $4,000 That Is At
tracing Much Attention ut Leba-
nOn-Other State News.


Special to the Indianapolis Journal.
RENSSELAER,, Ind, Jan. Bone of the
most interesting and far-reaching decisions
rendered recently in any Of the circuit
courts of Indiana was disposed of in the
Jasper Circuit Court by Judge Truman F.
Palmer, of Monticello, Ind, who was called
in by Judge Thompson, from whom
change of venue had been taken by the de-
PENDANTS Last September the Board of
Commissioners of Jasper county entered
into contract with the firm of tax ferrets
known as Fleener & Carnahan, by which
contract the ferrets were to search all the
records of the county with the view of
discovering sequestered property which had
not been returned for taxes. Under the
contract Fleener & Carnahan were to re-
ceive one-half of all the taxes reported by
them and collected by the county authorl-
ties In November Judge Thompson, of the
Thirtieth circuit, on application by clti-
zen, issued an order temporarily restrain
ing the board frora paying anything to the
ferrets for their services under the con-
tract. A new contract was then formu-
lated between the parties 10 the effect that
Fleener & Carnahan were to make certain
books of reference for the county, giving
cages which appeared on record belonging
to each taxpayer, and also the amount
given in by each payer for assessment pur-
poses; and under this contract they were
likewise to receive so per cent of all taxes
reported by the ferreters and collected by
the county officers. Judge Thompson issued
a second restraining order on account OF
this contract. A change of venue was then
"a ZION from IudCe Thon1pSon W fhp fprrPtS.
and the case was set down for hearing be-
fore Judge Palmer. The ferrets then de-
INJURED to the complaint for the perma-
nent injunction. and on the question of
this demurrer the decision was rendered.
The case was very thoroughly discussed
pro and con, on behalf of the defendants
by Judge Townsend, of vincennes, and on
behalf of the complainant by the Hon E.
b. Sellers, of Monticello, Ind, and Harry
r. Kurrie, of this city. The judge, in rem
dering his opinion, went into a full dis
cussion of the tax-ferret question, and held
against the ferretS on every point, granting
a permanent injunction and declaring the
contracts void The principal points elucl-
dated by the court were as follows:
First-That Section 1858, r. s., 1894. under
provisions of which contracts by boards of
commissioners of various counties of this
State have been sustained, was repealed
by implica ton by Section 14I of the gen
eral tax law of 1884, so far as it has refer
ence to the board employing persons to dis
charge the duties of officers, and that the
repeal of the provision in the law of 1881,
which took place in 1885, did not revive that
part of Section 1858 repealed by the law of
1881.
Second-That the matter of the discovery
of omitted property beyond that provided
was a question for the Legislature and
that the Board of Commissioners had no
control over it and that any attempt on
the part of the board to interfere with
the duties of the county officers was UNI
warranted and ultra wires.
Third-That the contracts giving the FER
rets a certain percentage of all they re-
cover are wholly contrary to public policy.
are champertous, have a tendency to fraud
and are void.
Fourth-That the contract with the board
allowing the ferrets so per cent. of all they
recovered out of the general funds of the
county, when, in fact, the county only re-
ceives about IA per cent. of the amounts
discovered was uncomfortable and would
not be upheld.
The case has attracted, and will attract,
widespread attention, as this firm, as well
as many other firms, are now engaged in
this and adjoining States. Although the
Supreme Court has never decided the mat
ter directly in this State, yet Judge Palmer,
in his ruling, to some extent follows the
decision made by Judge Fox, of the Wayne
Circuit Court, in a similar case about two
months ago $40