The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-04
AIN IMPORTANT QUESTION
1T Is INVOLVED IN A SUIT REGARD
ING PAYMENT OF FEES.
State VS.. Albert r. Tucker-Other
Court Cases.

An answer was filed in the Circuit Court
yesterday in the case of the State against
Albert r. Tucker, former auditor of Ham
ilton county, and his bondsmen for the re-
covery Of fees. that brings to issue a new
point in law regarding allowances made
by county commissioners, not only to off,
GERS of the county, but TO individuals and
corporations as we'll. The case was brought
here from Hamilton county on change of
venue. Gavin & Davis. of this city, filed
the answer which presents this new phase
of a question in which most counties of
the State are interested.
Tucker. as auditor of Hamilton county,
was allowed $2,947.O3 fees collected by the
Board of Commissioners in December, 1894,
and a suit was recently brought in the
name of the State for their recovery. The
answer is filed in behalf of fuckers bonds
men, who assert that they are in no way
responsible for the money being paid to
Tucker. The fees charged against Tucker,
the answer sets out, were turned over to
the county first. and at the end of the year
he presented a claim detailing the items,
and by an order of the Board of Commits
sioners the money was paid TO him by the
county treasurer.
t0F 49,
though it is one that has always been rec
ognized but not adjudicated in the courts.
AT the time fuckers claim was presented
a decision was pending in the Supreme
Court regarding fees, and after the decision
the money was paid. Later a decision was
made by the Supreme Court in a similar
case, modifying the former decision, and
then there was another, giving back to the
board the power 10 sit as a court and al
low claims. Provisions were made in the
acts under which these decisions were
made that appeals might be taken within
thirty days. The answer says no appeal
The point brought to issue is that when
a board of commissioners has once allowed
a claim and the money is paid and no
appeal is taken, that IL is binding and hat
the money thus paid cannot be recovered.
The question TO be decided is whether or
not the law has power TO set aside an ad-
judicatiOn once made under the presump-
ton that it is final and has no future con-
tingency Incorporated. 1t is common law
that such a settlement is binding, but this
is the first time that a legal test has
been attempted, as that point has never
before been questioned in the courts.
The answer says that each and all of
said claims were filed by said Tucker and
allowed by said board in the honest belief
upon the part of all parties thereto that
the same were valid and legal claims
against said board in fuckers behalf; that,
in fact, under the law as construed by the
latest decisions thereon made then by the
Supreme Court, such claims were valid and
legal and properly allowable against said
board. That the sums SO allowed were
paid and received by said Tucker prior to
Jan. l, 1895, and for more than thirty days
thereafter the declaration and construction
Of the law heretofore made by the Su-
preme Court as above set out, remained
unmOdihed and unchanged"
Continuing further the answer says. 'the
defendants say that the force and effect
of said Judgment and orders of allow
ance remain and continue the same as
they were under the law expounded by the
Supreme Court at the time of the making
thereof, unaffected by any change in the
construction or Interpretation of the stat
ute which has since been adopted by the
Supreme Court"
1t is not known how many counties in
the State have suits pending against Of
ticials for the recovery OF fees or have been
confronted with similar cases, but a de-
cision on this point will materially affect
all of them. The decision will affect the
common law doctrine as we'll as place a
construction on the statutory enactment.