TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Barnett v. Gilmore

Barnett v. Gilmore, 33 Ind. 199 (1870)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1870
Judges
Elliott
Citations
33 Ind. 199
Headnotes
County Commissioners. — Appeal.—A. contested the election of B. as county treasurer. The latter appealed from the decision of the county commissioners to the circuit court, and in proper time filed a bond, which contained no penalty, with the auditor, who failed to file a transcript and the papers in the cause in the office of the clerk of said court for more than fifty days after the bond was filed. In the circuit court, B. moved to dismiss the cause, pending which motion, A. moved to dismiss the appeal. The latter motion was sustained, after which B. tendered a proper bond and asked to have the appeal reinstated, which the court refused. Held,, that said motion to dismiss the appeal had precedence over said motion to dismiss the cause. Held, also that the failure of the auditor to file the transcript and papers in the clerk’s office within twenty days after the appeal was taken was no cause for the dismissal of the appeal. Held, also, that the fact that the appeal bond contained no penalty was good cause for dismissing the appeal. Held, also, that the offer to file a new bond, if allowable at any time, came too late after the appeal had been dismissed.
Summary
APPEAL from tbe Putnam Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Elliott

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Elliott, J.

In tbis case, Gilmore contested the election of Barnett to tbe office of county treasurer. Gilmore succeeded before tbe board of county commissioners, and Barnett appealed to the circuit court, and filed a bond with the auditor the day after the decision was made. The bond, however, contained no penalty. The auditor failed to file a transcript of the proceedings before the commissioners and the papers in the case, in the clerk’s office of the circuit court, for more than fifty days after the bond was filed.

In the circuit court, Barnett moved to dismiss the case, on the ground that there was no sufficient cause of contest. Pending that motion, Gilmore moved to dismiss tbe appeal, for tbe reasons, first, that no bond was filed authorizing an appeal; and second, because the transcript and papers were not filed in the clerk’s office within twenty days after the appeal was taken. The court dismissed the appeal, to which Barnett excepted. Afterwards Barnett tendered a proper bond, and asked to have the appeal reinstated, which the court refused to do, to which an exception was also taken. Barnett appeals.

The motion to dismiss the appeal had precedence over the motion of the appellant to dismiss the cause.

The failure of tbe auditor to file the papers and transcript in the clerk’s office within twenty days after the ap *201 peal was taken was no cause for tbe dismissal of the appeal. Day v. Herod, at the present term, ante, p. 197.

J. J. Smiley, W. Neff, S. Claypool, J. A. Matson, and C. C. Matson, for appellant. W. A. McKenzie, D. C. Donnohue, D. E. Williamson, and A. Daggy, for appellee.

The appeal bond was defective, as it contained no penalty, and the appeal was properly dismissed for that reason. The offer to file a new bond, if allowable at any time, came too late after the appeal had been dismissed, and there was no error in refusing to reinstate the;appeal.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1885–1886: 11893–1894: 11903–1904: 118852026peak 1885 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Strebin v. Lavengood71 N.E. 494 (Ind. 1904)
  2. Denton v. Thompson35 N.E. 264 (Ind. 1893)
  3. Johnson v. Stephenson4 N.E. 46 (Ind. 1885)

Most recent

  1. Strebin v. Lavengood71 N.E. 494 (Ind. 1904)
  2. Denton v. Thompson35 N.E. 264 (Ind. 1893)
  3. Johnson v. Stephenson4 N.E. 46 (Ind. 1885)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list