Title: Hooten v. Alt
Citation: 191 N.E.2d 13, 244 Ind. 93
Docket Number: 30,265
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: June 13, 1963

244 Ind. 93 (1963)
191 N.E.2d 13
HOOTEN ET AL.
v.
ALT ET AL.
No. 30,265.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed June 13, 1963.
*94 Joseph T. Helling, Crumpacker, May, Levy &amp; Searer, both of South Bend, Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General, and Kenneth D. Osborn, of LaPorte, for appellant.
*95 Link, Link &amp; Franceschini and John J. Davie, both of LaPorte, for appellees.
LANDIS, J.[1]
This was an action for a restraining order and injunction against certain persons constituting the School Reorganization Committees of LaPorte and St. Joseph Counties and sought to restrain and enjoin the St. Joseph County Committee from excluding Hudson Township of LaPorte County in their respective plans for school reorganization.
The LaPorte Circuit Court issued a restraining order without notice and set the case for hearing on the temporary injunction. After two changes of venue the case reached the court below, which, after hearing, granted the temporary injunction, from which interlocutory order, appeal has been taken to this Court.
Appellants' first contention on this appeal concerns the question of the right of petitioners under the School Corporation Reorganization Act of 1959, as amended, to withdraw from their petition for inclusion in a plan for reorganization filed under the Act, Burns' § 28-6106 (1962 Supp.).
The pertinent provisions of the statute are as follows:
*97 In the case before us a petition was filed on April 6, 1961, with the LaPorte County School Reorganization Committee requesting that Hudson Township be released to the St. Joseph County School Reorganization Committee for inclusion in the reorganization plan of that adjacent county.
On April 11, 1961, the LaPorte County School Reorganization Committee filed the petition with the clerk of the LaPorte Circuit Court and on April 13, 1961, said clerk made his certification that the petition as filed with him contained the names of 521 out of 774 (this was more than the requisite 60%) registered voters of Hudson Township.
However, on the same day, to-wit: April 13, 1961, at about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, plaintiffs-appellees in this action filed a second petition with the secretary of the LaPorte County School Reorganization Committee asking to withdraw their names from the original petition. Later in the afternoon of the same date, the clerk of the LaPorte Circuit Court returned the original petition with his certificate attached to the secretary of the LaPorte County School Reorganization Committee.
On April 20, 1961, the LaPorte County School Reorganization Committee considered both petitions and the second petition was ordered referred to the clerk for certification as to the total number of names on said petition who were registered voters of Hudson Township. That sometime between April 21 and May 24 the clerk returned the second petition to the secretary of the LaPorte County School Reorganization Committee certifying that 140 names contained thereon were registered voters of said Hudson Township.
*98 On May 4, 1961, the LaPorte County School Reorganization Committee considered both the original and the withdrawal petitions, rejected each of the petitions and refused to grant the prayer of either of such petitions.
On June 13, 1961, a director of the State Commission for the Reorganization of School Corporations by letter directed the LaPorte County Committee to release jurisdiction of Hudson Township to St. Joseph County and on June 16 the secretary of the LaPorte County Committee pursuant to said county committee's authorization wrote a letter to the St. Joseph County Committee releasing Hudson Township to that committee. The St. Joseph County Committee thereupon notified the LaPorte County Committee of its acceptance of the jurisdiction of Hudson Township and on June 23 the State Commission for the Reorganization of School Corporations recognized the authority of St. Joseph County to exercise jurisdiction over Hudson Township. Since June 15 the LaPorte County School Committee refused to exercise further jurisdiction over Hudson Township.
Appellants' first contention is that the trial court erred in its first four conclusions of law which were as follows:
Appellants have quoted from an annotation in 126 A.L.R. 1031 as follows:
Appellants further state that:
Appellants refer to the first part of Burns' § 28-6106 (1962 Supp.), supra, heretofore quoted wherein it is stated that:
Appellants argue that under the above quoted statute "... If a petition signed by sixty per cent of the registered voters, is filed, the reciprocal acts of release and assumption of jurisdiction by the respective county committees is [sic] mandated" and "... The time for measuring the number of signatures is ... necessarily the date the petition is filed."
Appellants' position however is weakened when the remainder of Burns' § 28-6106 (1962 Supp.), supra, is examined, providing that:
Appellants further argue that if a determination as to the sufficiency of the petition was contemplated by the statutes in this case, the clerk of the Circuit Court and not the county committee is given that exclusive function. However, it should be noted that under the above statute the clerk merely makes a certification as to whether each signer is a registered voter of the township, the number of such registered voters signing the petition, and the number of registered voters residing in the township. The disclosure of such facts is made known to the county committee, who, if such disclosure reveals 60% or more of the registered voters have signed the petition, informs the neighboring county committee. The statute thus contemplates that a determination be made as to the sufficiency of the petition and it is evident from the language of the statute that the determination is to be by the county committee and not the clerk of the court.
It is not disputed in the case before us that the withdrawal of the names by the second petition was prior to the receipt by the county committee of the certifications from the clerk and prior to any determination by the county committee as to what such certifications disclosed.
The most recent case before this Court considering the question of the validity of such attempted withdrawals *102 was Petercheff et al. v. City of Indianapolis (1962), 242 Ind. 490, 178 N.E.2d 746. That case concerned the sufficiency of a remonstrance against an annexation ordinance of the City of Indianapolis. Appellants filed a remonstrance in the trial court against the annexation, which remonstrance was referred to the auditor of Marion County, who certified the total number of persons owning real estate in the area concerned and the number of valid remonstrators who had signed the remonstrance. At the time the remonstrance was filed it contained the necessary majority of signers required under the statute. Subsequently, appellee filed a motion to withdraw the names of some 50 remonstrators who asked that their names be removed from the original remonstrance. The trial court allowed the withdrawal of the remonstrators and held the resmonstrance without the withdrawn signatures to be insufficient, and dismissed the action. We affirmed on appeal, stating at p. 494 of 242 Ind. and p. 748 of 178 N.E.2d:
It necessarily follows that the withdrawal of names attempted by the second petition in the case at bar *103 was prior to any determination by the county committee with reference to the first petition previously filed, and it was therefore in our judgment timely filed.
The authorities relied on by appellants are not applicable to the facts in the case before us. Appellants' contention that the statutes involved in this case should be read in pari materia with another statute[2] involving a somewhat related subject matter is not well taken as the statutes here in question are not ambiguous on the question of the right of withdrawal but such matter is not in any wise therein discussed. See: 26 I.L.E., Statutes, § 130, p. 342.
We conclude appellants have not shown error to have been committed by the court in its conclusions of law numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Appellants have further contended that the remedy of injunction was not proper in the instant case, but that if appellees were aggrieved by the county plan of reorganization they could appeal to the state commission and then to the circuit court of the county and ultimately to the Appellate or Supreme Court.
However, this Court has recently held a writ of prohibition could issue to enjoin the lower court from acting outside its authority under one of the school reorganization statutes. See: State ex rel. Jones v. Johnson Circuit Court (1962), 243 Ind. 7, 11, 181 N.E.2d 857, 860. In view of the result we have heretofore reached in this opinion as to the timeliness of the withdrawal of names on the petition, it is apparent that any action taken thereon by the LaPorte *104 County and St. Joseph County Committees directed toward the transfer of Hudson Township to St. Joseph County was without jurisdiction and was subject to the equity powers of the lower court. See: State Board Tax Comm. v. Belt R., etc., Co. (1921), 191 Ind. 282, 291, 130 N.E. 641, 644. The case of Greathouse v. Board, etc. (1926), 198 Ind. 95, 107, 151 N.E. 411, 415, cited by appellants and holding that injunctions will not be granted merely to allay the fears and apprehensions of individuals, is not in point.
We must hold that appellants' contention as to the impropriety of equitable relief in this case is without merit.
Appellants finally contend the court erred in issuing the temporary injunction without requiring appellees-plaintiffs to enter into a written undertaking with surety to be approved by the court to the adverse parties for the payment of all damages and costs which may accrue by reason of the injunction.
Here it appears a bond was posted signed by one of the appellees providing for the indemnification of appellants for "... all damages and loss which may accrue to them by reason of the injunction in this action." Appellants filed an "unsworn to" petition asking that the court require appellees to furnish bond with surety in an amount not less than $10,000 as a condition to the continuance of the restraining order or the granting of a temporary injunction. The court denied the motion for increase in bond for restraining order pending hearing for temporary injunction.
The applicable statutes cited by appellants bearing upon this matter are as follows:
It has been held by this Court that under Burns' § 3-2107, supra, the court should not issue a temporary injunction without a bond to protect the defendant. Indianapolis Dairymen's Coop. v. Bottema (1948), 226 Ind. 260, 264, 79 N.E.2d 409, 411. Although it was not pointed out by appellants' petition, it is apparent that no surety was contained on the bond approved by the court below at the time of the issuance of the restraining order. This *106 was contrary to Burns' § 3-2107, supra, which specifically required the posting of a bond with surety in order for an injunction or restraining order to issue.
We do not however have before us a case attacking the validity of the restraining order as this is an appeal from the granting of the temporary injunction. Appellants' assignment of error here is that the court erred in issuing a temporary injunction without requiring plaintiffs-appellees to furnish bond with surety for the payment of all damages and costs which may accrue by reason of the injunction.
An examination of the record does not reveal that the court below ever ruled upon this question presented by appellants' "unsworn to" petition. The order book entry of the court shows solely: "The Court now denies the motion for increase in plaintiff's bond for restraining order pending hearing for temporary injunction." (Emphasis supplied.)
Had appellants desired to raise the question of the lower court's abuse of discretion in failing to require bond with surety in an amount not less than $10,000 at the time of issuing the temporary injunction they should have specifically requested the court in their petition to determine such matter. The petition here filed asked, in the alternative, that bond be required "... as a condition to the continuance of the restraining order or to the granting of a temporary injunction."
The court's ruling denying "the motion for increase in plaintiff's bond for restraining order" obviously did not encompass the question appellants are seeking to present here on appeal relative to the bond on temporary injunction, and as it does not appear such question was presented to the *107 court below and determined, we cannot properly consider it here on appeal.
The interlocutory order granting the temporary injunction is affirmed.
Myers, C.J., and Achor and Arterburn, JJ., concur; Jackson, J., concurs in result.
NOTE.  Reported in 191 N.E.2d 13.
[1]  This case was reassigned at a conference of the Court and was first received by the writer of this opinion on January 29, 1963.
[2]  Burns' § 28-6117 (1962 Supp.), Acts 1959, ch. 202, § 7(1), p. 451; 1961, ch. 302, § 1(1), p. 816.