The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-06-30
supreme Court Affirmed the Judgment
of the Marion Cir
cult Court.
SCHOOL BONDS ARE VALID
AND BOTH THE school BOARD AND
CITY ARE RELIEVED.
diateIy Called to Take Action
in the Matter.

The Supreme Court yesterday affirmed
the case of Eddy Campbell and others VS..
The City of Indianapolis and the Board
of School Commissioners, known as the
Indianapolis school bond case. holding that
the school city and the civil city are in
dependent corporations and that each has
authority TO incur debts UP to the limit OF
2 per cent. of the taxable property within
their respective boundaries without regard
to the Indebtedness of the other. The
court further held that any in
the act of 1871. which created the School
Board of Indianapolis. that may have made
it unconstitutional as special legislation.
were cured by the act of 1899. which act
is valid.
The case grew out OF an attempt on the
part of Campbell, Wild & Co. to enjoin the
Board of School Commissioners of Indian
apolis from issuing school bonds TO the
amount of 800. 900 for the purpose of re-
funding some other bonds issued ten years
ago for the purpose of building school
houses. Judge Allen. of the Circuit Court,
heard the case and refused to grant an
injunction, holding that the bonds were
valid and that the School Board had a
right to refund them. The decision of the
Supreme Court yesterday affirms this judg-
ment and in effect decides that the differ
ent school cities over the State may in
cur debts and issue bonds for any proper
purpose in which the law gives them
authority to do so, without any reference
TO the amount OF indebtedness which the
civil cities in which they are located may
owe, and as a consequence the School
Board of Indianapolis may borrow the
money needed to refund the bonds issued
ten years ago.
WRITTEN BY JUDGE JORDAN.
The opinion of the court was written by
Judge Jordan. After speaking of the ma
ture of the suit and the action taken by the
court below in which final judgment was
rendered for the defendants, the court
says: 1T is virtually conceded, and prop
erly so, that the civil city of Indianapolis
is not a necessary part to this action. 1t
may be further asserted that it is not even
a proper party thereto, and, so far as the
questions herein involved are concerned,
the civil city of Indianapolis may be con-
sidered as eliminated from this action.
The cardinal question involved in this
appeal. under the facts. is in respect to
the validity of the $4,000 O of school bonds
issued by the board in 1890. which the
! present board is now proposing to refund
by the issue and sale of new bonds. 1t is
insisted by counsel for the appellants that
the decision of this principal question in
wolves three other subordinate propositions,
namely: First, was the statute Of March 3,
1871, which authorized the organization of
boards of school commissioners of the
school corporation of the city of Indian
aDOllS a valid aGf of the dQiCInflrrn9 Soc
ond, If valid, have the acts of said boards
in issuing and negotiating the school bonds
and contracting thereby the Indebtedness
in issue in this action, been remedied or
cured by the provisions of the statute i'm
force March 4, 1889? Third, are the debts
of the civil city of Indianapolis and those
OF the school city or corporation incurred
under the control and government of its
Board of School Commissioners to be treat
ed and considered under the law as the OBJ
legations of distinct and separate municipal
corporations. or must the Indebtedness of
each be combined and limited alone to the
civil city, to determine if the latter has ex-
ceeded the 2 per cent. limit of indebtedness
prohibited by Article IL of the States Con-
stitution?
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.
w address ourselves to a consideration
of these questions fully impressed with
their great public Importance, as it is evil
dent, as insisted by counsel for appellee.
that a decision adverse to it would in the
main be disastrous to the public schools of
indianapolis, and in its effect would result
in coercing appellee to repudiate an indebt-
edness incurred in building up and promot-
ing the public school system of that city.
and us contended, would render worthless
over 100000 of bonds issued by the School
Board and the civil city"
The first question taken up by the court
Il me N4lldlT n Tho nnf nf 1NT1 t.14~
which the Board of School Commissioner
OF the school city of Indianapolis was or
ganized and under which 1t assumed TO act
in issuing and negotiating the school bonds
OF 1880. The attorneys for the appellants
insisted that the act was invalid because
1t is violative of Specification 13, Section q.
Article A, of the States Constitution, which
provides that the General Assembly shall
not pass local or special laws in a great
number of enumerated cases, one of which
provides for the support of common schools
and for the preservation of school funds.
The appellants maintained that as the law
enacted in 1871 had reference only TO cities
of $4,000 inhabitants. and as indianapolis
was the only city in the State that had
that large a population in 1870. the act was
In effect unconstitutional. Upon this point
the court held that in its opinion il was
not the purpose of he Legislature to create
a Board of School Commissioners by the
act of 1871 for Indianapolis alone, as such
a distinct municipal corporation for school
| urposes had already been created for that
city under Section 4 of the general school
laws of 1865. Assuming, however, that the
act of 1871 was invalid because ii applied
only to indianapolis, the court holds that IL
was subsequently remedied and cured by
the act of the Legislature in force March
4, 1899, and that the Indebtedness of the
school corporation of the city of Indian
apolis. incurred by the issue and sale OF
the bonds of 1890 by the predecessor of the
present board has been validated and the
payment thereof by appellee legalized.
ANOTHER POINT.
The appellants next insisted that the
bonds in controversy were invalid for the
reason that at the time of their issue and
sale the Indebtedness owing by the school
corporation and the civil corporation of the
city of Indianapolis was I'm excess of the :
per cent. limit prescribed by Article 10 OF
| the States Constitution. In deciding this
point the court held that since the act OF
! 1866, a municipal school corporation and a
civil corporation were each held to be DOS
| sessed. according TO law, of its own rights
and each was subject TO the liabilities
| which IL had legally incurred, and an action
could not be maintained against one for the
| debts or liabilities of the other. Under the
| conclusion which the court places upon the
constitutional provision in controversy the
debts of the civil city of Indianapolis and
the school corporation, are not 10 be ag-
gregated To determine the debt limit &c
which either may be entitled under the Con
stitution. but that the right or power OF
each of these corporations to contract ar
Indebtedness not I'm excess of the limit
fixed by the Constitution is affected only
by it's own existing debts. In conclusion
| the court said: 1T follows. from the con