# Book v. State Office Building Commission

> Indiana Supreme Court · April 2, 1958 · 238 Ind. 120

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745083

## Case

- **Full name:** Book v. State Office Building Commission Et Al.
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 2, 1958
- **Citations:** 238 Ind. 120; 149 N.E.2d 273; 1958 Ind. LEXIS 213
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Emmert
- **Judges:** Bobbitt, Landis, Achor, Arterburn, Emmert
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745083

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that the 26 purpose of separating the powers of each branch is “to preclude a commingling of these 27 essentially different powers of the government in the same hands”

## Opinion text

*170 Concurring Opinion
Emmert, C. J.
I concur in the majority opinion except as to the ineligibility of the members of the General Assembly to be members of the Commission. Once we hold, as I believe we must, that the State Office Building Commission is a corporate entity separate from the State in its sovereign corporate capacity, it logically follows that the Commission is not a Department of the State of Indiana. Therefore, §60-2102, Burns’ 1951 Replacement (Supp.), does not violate Art. 3, §1, Art. 4, §1, or Art. 5, §1 of the Constitution providing for the separation of the powers of government. The members of the Commission are not exercising any functions of the Executive Department, for that is a Department of the State in its separate sovereign capacity. The fact that the Commission is an instrumentality of the State does not make it the State any more than the Indiana State Toll-Bridge Commission or the Indiana Toll Road Commission are Departments of the State. Under the issues presented and considered, I believe the Act is legal and constitutional in its entirety.
Note.—Reported in 149 N. E. 2d 273 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9745083. Public record. Not legal advice.