Court Opinion

ID: 9725045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:26:25.706534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:09.350745
License: Public Domain

*345On Petition for Rehearing
Cooper, J.
The appellees, on Petition for Rehearing, first contend, in substance, that we erred in our opinion by holding that the Town Board of Wynnedale had the authority and jurisdiction to vacate a ten-foot wide strip across the entire Knollton Road within the town boundaries at its north edge as ¶9, §48-301, Burns’, 1950 Repl. deals only with the power of the Board of Trustees to vacate streets of a town and it does not give the Board of Trustees any jurisdiction to vacate or obstruct any portion of a county highway which runs through a town.
It is the appellants’ contention that the portion of the Knollton Road which lies within, the Town of Wynnedale is not a street of the town as that term is used in Burns’, §48-301, supra.
The appellants cite no authority to support their first contention. The appellants’ argument proceeds on the theory that as said Knollton Road is characterized as a county road outside the boundaries of the Town of Wynnedale, it retains the character of a county road within said Town.
The fallacy of the appellants’ argument is that it necessarily presumes that a county road never loses it character as such even when annexed by, or incorporated into a town or municipality. If this were true, then you would have a jurisdictional conflict of authority between cities, towns and counties.
The conflict of jurisdiction contemplated by appellants’ theory would be intolerable because you would have many instances where there would be dual controls over many of the old county or township highways which are now main thoroughfares through cities and towns.
*346We find the general rule set forth in Yol. 64, C. J. S., §1661, p. 32, which states:
“As a general rule, a highway, on its inclusion by incorporation or annexation within the boundaries of a municipality, ipso facto becomes a street.”
Indiana follows this general rule. See Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. City of Michigan City (1930), (T. D. 1932), 94 Ind. App. 481, 490, 169 N. E. 873; Brown v. Hines (1896), 16 Ind. App. 1, 44 N. E. 655. The only exception to this jurisdictional rule is found in the Indiana State Highway Act and applies to Federal and State Highways only.
The appellants’ second contention is that this court in our opinion contravened the ruling precedent of the Supreme Court as set out in Debolt v. Carter (1869), 31 Ind. 355, and the case of City of Gary v. Much (1913), 180 Ind. 26, 101 N. E. 4.
The Debolt case, swpra, clearly is not applicable for the reason that this case was decided prior to the revision and repeal of laws relating to cities and towns by the Acts of 1905.
The second authority cited by the appellants sustains the position we took in the original opinion. On p. 29, in the City of Gary case, supra, the Supreme Court stated:
“Neither can it be doubted, that when this action was commenced except in certain instances not necessary to consider here, the exclusive power to vacate existing highways, located wholly within a town or city, was vested in such corporation.” (Our emphasis)
It is also the law that we cannot question the wisdom of such vacation but only whether or not the appellees had the legal authority to do so.
*347Our Supreme Court, in the case of Neff v. City of Indianapolis (1935), 209 Ind. 203, at 211, 198 N. E. 328, stated:
“It was said by this court in Spiegel et al. v. Gansberg et al. (1873), 44 Ind. 418, that courts have nothing to do with the expediency or inexpediency of vacating streets or alleys, and that the only question which courts will consider is whether the power vested in the city has been exercised according to law. See, also, Indiana Railway Co. v. Calvert et al. (1907), 168 Ind. 321, 80 N. E. 961.”
By reason of what we have heretofore stated, the appellants have failed to call to our attention any valid reason for us to grant a Petition for Rehearing.
Petition for Rehearing denied.
Ax, J., Myers, J., Ryan, C. J., concur.
Note. — Reported in 179 N. E. 2d 578. Rehearing denied 180 N. E. 2d 386.