The Board of Commissioners of Harrison County v. Leslie. in the State nearest thereto, for three weeks successively, and also by notice set up at the court-house door, and in three public places in the township where the land lies." 1 R. S. 1876, p. 801. This section makes it the personal duty of the county auditor to post the notices of his sales, in his management of the school fund of his county. Of course, he could procure this posting to be done by some one for him; but, in that event, whoever did it, would act for him and under his employment, and not under the employment of his county. In the last sentence of section 12 of the fee and salary act of March 12th, 1875, it is provided, that "Auditors shall receive one per cent. for managing the school fund of the county, and no other fee or compensation therefor." 1 R. S. 1876, p. 471. In the management of the school fund of his county, it became and was the personal duty of the auditor of Harrison county to post the notices mentioned in the appellee's account sued on in this action. If the auditor had posted those notices, in his own proper person, it is very certain that he would not have any valid claim against his county. for such services; and, as the appellee was merely the agent or servant of the auditor, and acting for him, in posting the notices, the appellee could not, it seems to us, acquire or assert any valid claim against the appellant for the value of his services. In section 15 of the fee and salary act above referred to, it is provided, that "The board of county commissioners shall make no allowance, not specially required by this act, to any county auditor, *** either directly or indirectly, nor to any clerk, deputy, bailiff or employee of such officer," etc. 1 R. S. 1876, p. 472. On the face of his claim, in this case, the appellee asked an allowance for services rendered by him, as an employee Miller v. Muir, Administrator. of the county auditor. The appellant was expressly prohibited, in and by said section 15, from allowing the appellee's claim. If the appellant had no right to allow such claim, it is clear that the circuit court had no such right, on appeal from the board of commissioners. Hanlon v. The Board, etc., of Floyd County, 53 Ind. 123; and The Board, etc., of Greene County v. Stropes, 58 Ind. 54. We think that the finding of the court below, in this case, was contrary to the law, and for this reason we hold that the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial. The judgment is reversed, at the appellee's costs, and the cause is remanded with instructions to sustain the appellant's motion for a new trial, and for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. MILLER V. MUIR, ADMINISTRATOR. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.--Time of Filing.-Where, on the 10th of June, sixty days are given within which to file a bill of exceptions, the 12th of August succeeding is too late to file the same. From the Dearborn Circuit Court. N. S. Givan, for appellant. F. Adkinson and G. M. Roberts, for appellee. BIDDLE, J.-Motion for an execution. At the July term of the Dearborn Circuit Court, 1865, the appellee, as administrator of the estate of James Muir, Sr., deceased, recovered judgment against the appellant for the sum of fourteen hundred and eighty-nine dollars and seven cents. No execution was ever issued to collect the judgment. The State, ex rel. Godfroy, v. The Board of Commissioners of Miami County. On the day of October, 1875, the appellee filed his motion to revive the judgment, and to have execution thereof. The appellant answered the motion by a general denial, but by an agreement between the parties all matters of defence were to be given under the answer. Trial by the court; finding for the appellee. Final judgment was rendered on the finding on the 10th day of June, 1876, and the appellant had from that date sixty days within which to file a bill of exceptions, but the bill was not filed until the 12th day of August, 1876. This is too late. No questions are made in the case, except such as arise upon the bill of exceptions, and that, not having been filed in time, can not be considered as in the record. There is therefore no question before us for our consideration. It would be far more satisfactory to us to decide the case on its merits, but the appellee insists upon the defect in the record, and we can not deny him his right. The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant. THE STATE, EX REL. GODFROY, v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSION- TAXES.-Lands Held by Indians.--Mandate to Refund Illegal Taxes.—County VOL. LXIII.-32 The State, ex rel. Godfroy, v. The Board of Commissioners of Miami County. illegal taxes assessed against such lands and collected from such Indians, the complaint failed to allege that such lands were reserved to such Indians as a tribe or band, and not individually. Held, on demurrer, that the complaint is insufficient. Held, also, that, by section 10 of the act of December 21st, 1872, in relation to the assessment of taxes, 1 R. S. 1876, p. 72, lands in this State, reserved to or for any individual under any treaty between an Indian tribe and the United States, are taxable from the date of confirmation of such treaty. SAME.-Application to Commissioners to Refund.—Appeal.—Mandate.-Remedy. Where an application has been made to and refused by a board of commissioners under the provisions of the act of March 2d, 1853, 1 G. & H. 110, for the refunding of taxes illegally assessed and collected, the remedy of the applicant is by appeal thence to the circuit court and not by mandate. SAME.-Judicial Act.-Ministerial Act.-The action of a board of commissioners upon such an application is a judicial, and not a ministerial, act. From the Miami Circuit Court. H. J. Shirk, J. Brownlee and H. Brownlee, for appellant. N. O. Ross and J. Mitchell, for appellee. NIBLACK, J.-This was a proceeding instituted in the court below, in the name of the State, on the relation of Gabriel Godfroy, alias Top-Pier-Yah, against the Board of Commissioners of the county of Miami, to compel them to refund certain taxes alleged to have been improperly collected from the relator. The complaint, which was verified by affidavit, may, after some immaterial changes in its phraseology merely, be stated as follows: "Gabriel Godfroy, for himself and others, whose names are too numerous to be named as relators, but whose grievances are in all things similar to the claim of said Godfroy, complains of the Board of Commissioners of the county of Miami, and informs the court, that the said Godfroy is a Miami Indian, and a member of that part of said tribe designated by the treaty of 1854, made between the United States and the Miami Indians, as the Miamis of Indiana. The State, ex rel. Godfroy, v. The Board of Commissioners of Miami County. "Said relator also informs the court, that he is the son of Francis Godfroy, one of the chiefs of said Miami nation; that he, said relator, has always resided on the lands reserved to him and his ancestors, members of said tribe, which have never been owned by any citizen of the United States. "Said relator avers, that he and the others, for whom he also sues, are of the Miami tribe and nation of Indians named and specified in the several treaties made between the United States and the Miami Indians, and in the acts of Congress passed in relation to said Miami Indians. Said relator, for himself and said others he represents, claims that they have never been citizens of the State of Indiana, nor of the United States, but that said Indians named and referred to in said treaty of 1854, (of which said relator and said others are a part,) were, before and since said treaty of 1854, part of a dependent tribe residing in the State of Indiana, and are not governed by, nor subject to, the laws of the State of Indiana, only so far as the public safety requires. "Said relator charges, that he and said others, on whose behalf he sues, have been the owners of personal and real property, the said real property being the real estate so reserved to them and their ancestors, as aforesaid, on and for which they have been charged, and have been required by the treasurer of said county of Miami to pay, a large amount of taxes, both State and county, to wit, by said Godfroy, State taxes one thousand one hundred dollars; courty taxes twenty-five hundred dollars, which includes all taxes except State, school and sinking-fund taxes. "Said relator further informs the court that his and said other property was listed for taxation, charged on the proper duplicate and collected by said treasurer from him and those others for whom he also appears, as if they had been citizens of said State, and as if they and their prop |
Get this book in print