34 Ind. App. 44 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1904
Appellants sought to enjoin the board of commissioners of Decatur county from submitting to the voters of Adams and Clinton townships, of said county, at a regular or special election, the question of improving certain roads and highways in said townships, and to improve certain new roads and parts of roads not theretofore opened, laid out or established, upon the ground that the commissioners did not have jurisdiction of the subject-matter. The court sustained appellee’s demurrer to the
The amended complaint, in substance, shows that on the 6th day of August, 1900, a petition was presented by Charles R. Miller and others, praying for tire improvement of certain roads and highways, described therein, in Clinton and Adams townships, Decatur county, Indiana, by graveling, paving or macadamizing; and when so graveled, paved or macadamized to be free of toll. The complaint shows that three copies of the petition were written, and the copies circulated and signed separately — each petitioner signing but one copy — but that tírese copies were attached together and filed as a single petition.- Said petition before any signatures were obtained stated: “This petition is written in triplicate and all three of said copies are to be presented together and considered as a single petition.” The copy designated as exhibit A was presented by the resident freehold voters of Clinton township, which showed affirmatively that the petitioners were resident freehold voters of said Clinton township, in number twenty-five, and less than fifty. The second copy of said petition, designated as exhibit B, was presented by resident freehold voters o-f said Adams township, and in numbers more than fifty. The third was presented by the resident freehold voters of said Adams township, and that copy affirmatively showed that the petitioners were freehold voters of said township, and in number twenty-seven.
On the Ith day of August, 1900, said board of commissioners, passing on said petitions, found that they constituted but a single petition, and were treated by the board and intended by the petitioners as a single petition; that the system of roads was a continuous and connected system extending in and through said township, except the Eoster Schoolhouse and Mount Moriah roads, which did not con
Appellants discuss and contend for but two propositions: (1) To create a taxing district of two' or more townships, the petition should be signed by fifty freehold voters of each township; (2) the board of commissioners have no power under the statute to construct a gravel road over a route not already laid out or established according to statute.
The case of Gilson v. Board, etc., supra, is in point, and sustains our construction of the statute. The case involved the purchase of a toll road passing through the townships of Center, Jackson and Rushville, in Rush county: It was said on page 67: “Eifty freeholders of the townships of Center, Jackson and Rushville, in Rush-county, * * * filed in the office of the auditor of said county a petition signed hy them, praying the hoard of commissioners of said county to submit to the voters of said townships, at a special election, the question of purchasing a certain toll road * * * in the said county. * * * Such proceedings were had under this petition that the road was appraised, the election was ordered, notice thereof given, the election held, and a return thereof made to the board of commissioners of Rush county. The board determined that a majority of the votes cast at such election was in favor of the purchase of the road, and thereupon entered an order to purchase the same. * * * A majority of all the votes cast in Center township was against the purchase, but a majority of all the votes east in the three townships voting at such election was in favor of purchasing the road.” The petition was not signed by fifty freehold voters in each township, and, while the opinion does not in terms state that to be unnecessary, but one inference can be drawn from the conclusion reached.
The petition in the case of Gilson v. Board, etc., supra, was filed under an act of the' General Assembly approved March 8, 1889 (Acts-1889, p. 276), the language of which is almost identical with that of the act governing the case at bar. In the course of the opinion the court said: “This
Appellants cite Crow v. Judy (1894), 139 Ind. 562, in support of the proposition that “The board of commissioners have no power under the statute to construct a gravel road over a route where no highway previously existed.” The petition in that case was filed under an act of the General Assembly approved March 3, 1877 (Acts 1877, p. 82, §§5091-5096 E. S. 1881). That case holds that §§5091, 5092, supra, make no provision for opening new roads. No language equivalent to that used in reference to new roads, under the act under consideration, appears in said §§5091, 5092. Since the decision, .the legislature amended the act conferring the power to establish, any portion of such improvement petitioned for upon lands where there are no highways established at the time the petition is filed. Acts 1901, p. 72, §6855 Burns 1901.
In the ease of Gifson v. Heath (1884), 98 Ind. 100, cited in Crow v. Judy, supra, the petition was filed under §5091, supra, authorizing the construction of a highway upon a new route when necessary to shorten or straighten a road, to secure a better route, or for the purpose of drain
Counsel for appellee earnestly contend that the copies of the petition filed as exhibits with complaint are not the basis of the action, and without them the facts stated are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that appellants had another and adequate remedy than injunction; and that for each of these reasons, if for no other, the demurrer to the complaint was properly sustained. The exhibits were not the basis of the action, but upon these questions we have not deemed it necessary to pass.
.Judgment affirmed.