32 Ind. 322 | Ind. | 1869
This was a proceeding instituted by William Baker, mayor, and other persons* describing themselves as the common council of the city of Evansville, to annex certain territory to said city. The proceeding, as appears on
This motion was overruled, and exception was 'taken. The answer of appellants was re-filed, by leave of -court. The cause was transferred back to Vanderburgh county. There, at the October term, 1868, the cause came on to be heard before a jury. The jury found for the plaintiffs. There was a motion for new trial, for the reason that the verdict is contrary to law, and other causes; which motion was overruled, and exception was ‘taken. The appellants then moved in arrest, assigning-as grounds,
1st. The act under which the proceeding was instituted is unconstitutional, null, and void.
2d. There is no law authorizing such proceedings.
3d. There is no petition or other legal application on file.
This motion was overruled, and exception was taken. Final judgment was rendered,-ordering that said territory
1st. The circuit court erred in overruling appellants’ demurrer to complaint2d, in overruling motion- to- dismiss; 3d, in overruling motion for new trial; 4th, in overruling motion in arrest; 5th, in rendering the judgment set out.
The city of Evansville exists under a special charter:, granted January 27th, 1847. Local Laws 1846—7, p. 3.
The present constitution, which took effect November 1st, 1851, pi’ovides, that 44 all acts of incorporation for municipal purposes shall continue in force, under this constitution, until such time as the General Assembly shall, ill its discretion, modify or repeal the same.”
By the act of March 6th, 1865, entitled 44 an act to amend the seventy-first section of an act entitled 4 an act granting to the citizens of the town of Evansville, in the county of Vanderburgh, a city charter/ approved January 27th, 1847, and to add supplemental sections to said act” (Acts 1865, Eeg. Sess., p. 113), certain powers are conferred upon the city council of Evansville. It is insisted that that act is unconstitutional, null, 'and void.
The twenty-third section of article four of the constitution (1 G. & H. 40) declares, -that 44 in all the cases enumerated in the preceding section, and in all other cases where-a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general and of. uniform operation throughout the State.”
The amendment relates to the power of the city to annex adjoining territory. This is not a case where a general law is required by the express terms of the constitution. In Gentile v. The State, 29 Ind. 409, we held, overruling Thomas v. The Board of Commissioners of Clay County, 5 Ind. 4, that 44 it is for-the legislature alone to judge whether a law on any given subject, not enumerated in section twenty-two of the constitution, can be made applicable to the whole State.”
Under this construction, doubtless, special powers might he. conferred, on any city within, the State, as the members
Beyond this, the express grant of power in the constitution to the legislature to modify any former act of incorporation for municipal purposes, places the constitutionality of the act before us above cavil.
The other objections are still more trivial. It is seriously insisted that the petition does not show that the city desired to annex the territory described.
The petition purports to be “the pétition of the common council of the city of Evansville,” and alleges that “it is the desire of said common council that certain territory hereinafter described, contiguous to said city, and platted, or laid off, should be annexed to said city, in pursuance of the provisions of,” &c. This petition is signed and sworn to by the mayor and members of the city council.
It is objected that the notice was insufficient. As a matter of practice such motions, after an appearance and demurrer, would as well be omitted.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.