45 Ind. App. 184 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1910
On September 12, 1904, appellee entered into a contract with the Board of Commissioners of the County of Jackson for the construction of a free gravel road in Carr township, said county, under the act of 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 449, §§6899-6913 Burns 1901) and amendments of 1903 (Acts 1903, pp. 263, 288 and 294), authorizing boards of commissioners to contract for the construction of free gravel roads, etc.
On July 2, 1907, appellee filed a written petition asking the board of commissioners of said county to receive his said road as completed according to the plans, plats, profile and contract under which said improvement was let. This petition was based upon affidavits made by the superintendent and the engineer that said road has been completed by the contractor according to the plans, plats, profiles and contract under which such improvement was let, and that the quantity and quality of the material used in making said improvement was the kind of material, except better, and that the quantity used was as required in the contract.
To this petition, appellant Charles Wright filed a written protest, and such proceedings were had before said board that the petition of appellee was denied. Prom this ruling of the board appellee appealed to the circuit court, where the
The board of commissioners assigns as error the action of the court in overruling its motion for a new trial. Appellant Wright assigns as error the overruling of his motion to file his protest herein and his motion for a new trial.
1. We shall consider these assignments in their inverse order. Section 6911, supra, provides that “whenever any superintendent and the engineer of any road or roads eonstriAeted under the provisions of this act * * * shall each file their SAvorn statements with the auditor
The record shows that the affidavit of the superintendent and the engineer was filed on June. 20, 1907, more than ten days prior to the regular July term, 1907, of the board, and appellant Wright did not offer to file his protest until July 2, 1907, and after the ten days for the filing' by the taxpayer, had expired. It was not error therefore to refuse permission to file said protest.
No legal objection having been made to said affidavit, the court committed no error in overruling his motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.