Opposition Brief — Indiana Revenue Board v. Indiana ex rel. City of Indianapolis

Supreme Court brief1970

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

JPREME COURT, U. S

° he

. |

| “INDIANA B REVENUE BOARD, ET Ab, coins

a oe ‘ nie Boyt ‘s Petitioners, :

< . “v. shee I. : '

srate OF . INDIANA, on tha ‘relation of: “the ho Ws be

. City of Indianapolis, as successor in interest to

the Mass Transportation Authority of Greater

Indianapolis, a Municipal ‘Corporation, ‘and ;

Richard M. ave and J nee F. Neff,

a Bie Pag a ee Se SOR RES Respondents.

“BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION. FOR A WRIT:

OF CERTIORARI AND APPENDICES pe

Of Counsel: © es 8. Lim. ~

gS tis OHN x

LIEBER & NEFF "'« 322 ah ic Tewer Building

322 Circle Tower Building. diana Tn

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

- Donatp E. Bowen - d :

~ oes: MYERS, NorTHaM & 506 IsTA Center Building See

: 2 ar: Teet “Bra

606 ISTA_ Center Building _ Indianapolis, Indiana

50 West- Market Street *

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 . “Hagow H. im Coa :

* =f ; = Sig org ee a ee

SM ae Cae es al n 4 *

3 a bee : ane _Indiayapo. Building: cot Se

Sar cad as fovea cen Agee Gee ade @ for Respondents

phage Sig ; g . ~~ luprerie Court, US.

i eg Weal Ss FILED :

t -: ; “aae f :

“° _ e 2 ‘

ro . ‘ £ ) .

‘ INDEX i

*. Page

Opinions. Below -..2:) 0.0... PO aren Bi Ks es sone ccens ]

Jurisdiction. Rear hee Ais SE Dee Ee oa Ne, eychertrenn (meee my 2

Questions. Pa esented Re le fa — UREN ean, 2

Siatutes and ‘Constitutional Provisions Involved: . . ys

Sta tement of the Case Set ve cee PP tert Fa 3

; Reasons lor Denying the Writ .:..... ee oe Ret 5 4

None of: the Federal Questions: Presented were : My

Seasonably, MON. se tia Aa ieee See

Petitioner Etherton Was Not Exensed from Obe V-

ing the Mandaté ....:...°: PE Ee In es ade 13

Etherton Was Properly Substituted. ; Pp ive ees Pore «

. Department af Transportation Had Iuhoritod the »

| | re Vrs pe Tee Ce Eee Cee Kah een ¢ 14

Grantee! of Attorney Fees had no E fet on the

- Order * kd aL Ey OPES PE ea Rene Cine me ets

Repeal of the Law 'Badee Which the Auditor’s

Duty Aroxe-Did not Justify her —— to Obey

".» The Mandate ....;., mean eT Rye ey eae |

~ Auditor May Not Place Her Own Interpret tation .

of the (' oustitution Abov e the Court’s >.:.:.. . 20

Petitioners Were Not Proper Parties ‘to Raise

the Question’ of the Attorney eae Poe

Non Federal ‘Grounds Were Adetyuate at: Fed-

eral Questions Were not: Substantial ......... 23

Fee or ilet ae, i pi

INDEX—Continued

’ .

: Page

. Conclusion ........ eae Ma oe EOE PE a

Appendix |

"A. Acts of 193]

B.» Actd of 1967, ch. 311, $4, Burns? 36-3433...

» eh. 75, § 14) Burns? -7-2414 2...

C. Acts of 1925, ch. 79, $1, Burns? 61-101 22...

D. Acts of 1925

". ‘Aets of 1925

; ais

*. <Aets of TS65

47416...

» ch. 28, § 2; Burns’ 61-202 .....

h. 79, § 2, Burns’ 64-102 22...

. Sess.), el. 59, 61, Burns’

.a.8 8 24.45 ee ee ee ee a a ae te Fe

”

‘AUTHORITIES CITED .

; Page

Ca ses

Asimow ¢ ‘Stoker ( (1960), 151 Ind. App. 195, 166 NUE,

2nd iad CEE REG ee Ooh ene een ia acs das

Barton te. State (1960)° 240 Ind. 2 4, 1638 NE. 2nd 600 12

—Bostow e. Jackson, Mi ANS, * 1922, 260 U S. 309, 43 S.Ct.

kan, Gi B.Ed O74... .- or SEY re Loe eee eee S|

Cutcomp ve. Ul, eer bf. 60 lawa.s 136, 14 SAW.

i) ewe Bee eae Meee ae Be Oe alge Ee Orbe ae 17, 18

Donech. ?, ery (19: 38), | 21+ Ind. 559, 16 N.E.-2nd 877-15

Drinkwater ve E ihewberry ee 224 Ind. 84; 64 NE.

2a 399) PIV ONES erekes Sie sew Meme a ere ok. 12

Ride ey vy. Pe Mle ~! State of ‘alifornia, Cal. 1953,

344 U.S. Ot, 78. S.¢'t. 295, 97 L.Ed. otis nae 15

J, I} Case Co. vi Sande fur (1964), 245 “Ind. 197 -

N.ES 2nd 549 RMI Ula Moye Sw bis vues wae sao a 12.

Liberty Warehouse . Burle: iw 2. 8. Coop., Ky. 1923,

276 US. 71, 18. S.Ct. 291, 72 L.Ed. 473 ae

Marbury e. eadioan (1803), re “ranch a 2y LL.B

sgh a Pe Oa a ae Nay nex os ao

Marshall rv. Dye, Ind. 1913, 231-U:S. 250, 34 S.Ct. 92,

a eS” die Bie aaa aa ete rnt tag ok 22

Mooney v. Drainage District No, 1. of Richardson

County, 113 Neb. 197, 274, N.W. Sa Coenen i ah ae

Mooney v. Drainage District “4 1, Ne b. 1936,- 305 U.S.

622, 59 S.Ct. ‘oad 7)... ie irr i aan 18

Putnam. v. pas (1875), 50 ind PON ca he 17

iil

AUTHORITIES CITED—Continued,. > -

CWses—continued ee: ro ne : aay

Sears Ree buck & Co. r: State (1968), 248 hid. 169, 225 .

‘N.E. 2d 15 : x ~—6-16

oe ee ea a Oe Oe ee eae leb eo 6 a Rue ae Me Oe ke

Smith vv. Indiana, Ind. 1903; 191 U S. ai 24 S.Ct. 51,

Me Ae oe ee 22

State v, Bleeke (1917), 17 Ini. o. 23, 116-N.E.2...° 17

‘State | Crawford, 105 So. 446, 90 I la. “64 : 17,18

State er ai Mass Transp. Auth, Wedions Rev. Ba.

(1968), —— Ind. App. eae 249 N Ae. 5” 2, 19-

State.ex rel, Mass. Transp. Auth, : Selias Rev, ‘Ba.

(1969), —— Ind. App. ——,; IN AB, 2d 725. .9, 14, 19,: 21

» State ex rel. Mass, Trausp. Auth». Endiama Rot Ba, Bd, |

ie 3978), = = Ind. App. sign 230,N 1. 2d 838 .....2°.9

State ex rel. Owens v: woth Judicial District (1931),

‘2O2%sInd, 354,174 N. E. 425 ee ea eee tee e er eeneees )

State er ae Atlantic Coast Line R. . Board ah is

E ‘qualize rs, S4 Fr la. 592, 94 So. 681, re t, R. : 362.22 20

° Tubbs v.. Linn, 70) NW. 973 .....- St DS ee ‘en VAC

. Voelkel x. Berry (1966), 139 Ind. in 267, 218 NE.

ih Oe a ee ee eee 13

Statutes and Constiutional Provisions

Article 7, § Section 1 of the. Constitution of Indiana

28 U'S.C., Section 1257(3) lee

Acts of 1965, (inde, Bess;) ), eh. 99, 6 1, Burns’ 4741 ae

Acts of 1931, che 75, § 14,-Burns’ 7-2414 22.6.0... .

Acts of 1969, ch, 311, © 3, Burns’ 86-3433(a) (1)

*% 5 1V 5 2 : 5 Se

AUTHORITIES CITED—Continued

: f -~ I age

Statutes and webs eee Provisious continued

Acts of 1925\ ch. 79,1, Burns 61- Ls: ee eee aor. 3

Acts of 1925, ch. 79. = Burts’ 61-102. Rey Pere tree

Acts of 1925, ch. 285 61, Burns? 61-202... Petre

gets of 1969, ch. 173, $314: Burns? 48-9213 2.0.0... 14,

* Acts of 1969, ch. 173, § 100, Burns* 4s- 9: 303 .. ies ee . 15

Acts of 1873, chy 43, ‘ . has amended, Burns? 3-1216 . 16

, se teeanknamens se ae . Miscvellancous

—_—— ' ‘ ‘

United States Supreme Court Rules of Procedure; =

No Tee Yay ss Be A ae tiene aoe oe AE: Oe he ee eh are ——

Trial Rule. COA, Indi: an& Rules of Civil Procedure .... 6. |

Trial Rule 19 cr ) 2% Indiana Rule s of Civil Proe edure- , 9

1 Indiana Law Eneyelopedia, Appeals, § “1,-p. 577 eee

1 Indiana Law Eneyelopedia, Appeals, 73, p. 379 ;, aa

42) Amexiean— Jurispriidence, Publie Administrative ;

Law, § 68, py 380, Note 17 ..... bs sinaacks wears Pie

‘

e u&

‘4 -

’

4 .

’

P °

* ° be

; ‘

. s

. e >

* i e .

‘

g .

- .

\ 5

’

‘ ‘.

° -

‘

“

ad J

‘

- “ :

5 pees ‘ Py

* * ,

F -

. a 7

° »

; :

’ .- ° a

i: ’

~ *

: .

. e

. bd ;

. °

; .

- s

“4

‘ ~

> e

‘—_

“-

OPINIONS BELOW =

- Judgment and Order of Commitment of the

IN THE

~ Supreme Court of The United States

: eee

gee OCTOBER TERI, 1970 Je

Panes: ea yee

F ; - 3 | —t

INDIANA REV NU E BOARD. Bh AL.

‘3 - Petitioners;

eee i v.

to nee :

STATE OF INDIANA, -on the relation of the.

City of. Indianapolis, as successor in interest to’

the Mass Transportation. Authority of Greater

Indianapolis, a Municipal Corporation, and

. Richard M. Givan and John F. Neff,

Respondents.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR A WRIT.

OF CERTIORARI AND APPENDICES

The Petition for- Writ of Casliorath is Reeciod to the.

Appellate

Court of Indiana, acting as a trial court, entered on Febru-

ary. 26, 1970, as reported m -

*Indiana Appellate

250 N.KE. 2d 822, ordering. Trudy Slaby Etheérton, the

Auditor of the State of Indiana, committed to the Marion

LP or °

A ’

» County Tndiana) daar for contempt of Court; the dis-

missal of the Petition to Transfer the aforesaid , judgmie nt

and order to the Indiana Supreme Court eiffered on April’

“LO, 1970; without: opinion; and the ‘di€missal ‘of : Petition’

for Rehearing to the Indiana Supreme € ourt | e@pred:, June

1, 1970, without opinion. etek

“Se us |

JURISDICTION pel Sins -.

Thi P elitionie ' ix invoking the tastigliolion: of this ¢ ‘ourt

: angler. IS USC. Sec, 1237 (3). As set forth in Rule 19

of the Supre me Court of the: United States, A rev iew on

W rit of Certiorart is not a matter of right, hut of sound

judicial diseretion, and will be granted only where there.

are spe cial and impor tant re ‘SONS therefore.’

The dee ‘Fsion of the Nppe Dake b ‘ourt of Indian: au was = based

‘

port the Court's judgment.

The Petitioners have w aived any: claim Sadee the Rqual

Protection ¢ ‘Jause and the Due Process ( ‘Tausejot the Foar-

"teenth Amendment.’ singe it w as not se: tsonably raked,

__* QUESTIONS PRESENTED”

‘1. Were the ‘Tederal Questions Presented. by the. Pati.

tioners Properly or Season: vhly rakged for the Tyurpose of

‘a Writ of Cortionari?. | :

: \s, Was Petitioner, Etherton in any: way excused “from

abiding by the Mandate of ‘the Indiana Appellate Court?

3.. Were all of the questions of law proper ly devided by

the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Appellate Court,

and were these either exclusively state questions or. non-

substantial federal questions ? A sit ee thee

‘upon non-k ‘ederal, grounds which | _Were adequate to sup--

‘

ti . Ce | 3 f

985 wes abt _

4. Were the Petitioners the proper parties io raise the

question of paymentof attorney’ s fees?

7 STATUTES & CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Po / | INVOLVED™ z

cd . i F

In. addition to: the Constitutional Provisions set out in.

the Petition’ on pages 3 and 4 in addition to: the Statutes |

Set out in the Petition on pages’ 4 and 5. and in the Peti- .

tioners? Appendix, pages 70 to 77 the Responde ats sub-

NS mit at Appe ndix A the following statutes and rules:

Ache OF 190K eh, 311, $3 as amended, as densa in

- Burns’ Indiana’ Statutes Annotated bea is Supp.) See-:

tion 36-3433 (a) (1).. Si ey a

Acts of 1965: (Spec. Sess. ), ch. 59: $1 as amended as

; found in Burns’ Indiana Statutes Annotated. (1968 *

2 Repl. ) Seetion.4- (416. |

.° A |

Acts of 1925, ch. 79 \ las: found } ee Burns’ Indiana

Statutes Annotated (1961 Repl. ), See. 61- 101,

- Acts of 1925, ch. 796 2 @found i Mm Burts? Indiana

Statutes Annotated (1961 Repl.,), Section 61- 102.

‘Acts of 1925, ch. 28 1 as. found in Ruras? tadicin

Statutes Annotated (1961 Repl.), Seetlom 62-202,

Seventh. . ; oe, 2

a P

‘Acts of 1931, ei: 75 §14 as Amended, as found in’

Burns’ Indiana Statutes Annotated (1970 Supp. ), See-

tion 7- -2414. ;

STATEMENT: OF THE CASE

On December 31, 1968, the Indiana Aipeilite. Court

aljndged that the Governor had no power, to pocket veto

cc"

ee and Subseque nt PetHtion for Rehearing were dismissed by

: + :

- ’

° .

a statute containing an emergency clause_providing for its |

immediate taking effeet, and.it held that a 1967 Act giving ~~ —

ce rtain. inheritance tax finds to-the counties had, therefore,

become the Taw. a et eR,

+ newly elected State Auditor had taken office, and “op

eral other State officials took office in January, 1969,

Under the judgment the new. Anditor was mandated to pay

the Counties the inheritaneé tax money due’ them. A month

and a half later, the Indiana General Assembly attempted |

to repeal the 1967 Act retroactively to the day of its enaet-

~ ment. Based upon the répeal, the Auditor refused to obey °

“the mandate, On petition of the Responilent, the Indiana

“Appellate Court. héld that the Legislature could not repeal -

ao tinals juderne nt, tnd, it ordered’ payment to be made.

When the Auditor still. refused to make payment, she was ~

_founel guilt¢ of. contempt and ordered to jail. The Peti- *-.

tioners petitigned the Indiana Supreme. Court t6-accept

_ transfer of thy contempt order. “The Pétition to “Transfer

at three to one vote (one abstention ). 4 wie

ms ertain errors in the 7 elitioners’ Statement: of the case

( Petition, page) to 11) should he pointed out.

- The Respondents would object to this Petition’ and

: ae beitwe consolidated and considered with Petition

for Writ of Certiorari No, 1680 filed June 11, £970, for the

reason that consolidation woald enable: the Petitione rs to

bring- up questio?s in’ this proceeding which were not

properly#or timely raised and-whieli would cloud the ques:

| «tioy of contempt of court by the Petitioner, Trudy Slaby

KEtherton.

On Page 6 of the Petition it is stated that. a ail

“account was ereated to hold Inheritance Taxes and im- .

#» , . . .

é | Pits P ; : nn ” : \

. . . 2 ” \

* - * ;

e . = .

® . . * s «

plied. that it was, separate and pelt fr om the General Fund...

That account already existed (see Appendix page A-1, Acts’

of 1931, ch. 75, 614, as found in Burns’. Ind. Stat. Anno.

(1970 Supp. ), Section 7-244) and it was a ‘part. of. the

General “Fund. (Appe ndix, pages «\: } to A-2 Acts of 1925, ».

¢h. 28 §1, as found in! Burns’ Ind. Stat. Anno. (1961

mer), Section 61-202, Seventh. ).

Oe ~The paragraph beginning “on page 6 and ending on

page 7 of the Petition attempts to place in question. a jrdg-

me nierendered by the Indiana Appellate Court on Decem-

her 31, 1968, which has Jong since. been. affirmed by the

Indi: ana Supreme. Court. It-serves merely as an attempt to

‘cloud the mail question | regarding whether Trudy Slaby

Etherton was properly fomnd.. in-contempt of Court. It is

not) timely’ and. should be stricken «from the Petition or

given no conside) ‘ation, eal ie

4. The® “second paragraph of page. c of: the: Petition -

Stites that the’ Appe ‘Hate Court Opinion of December ol,

1968, State ex rel. Mass, Transp, Auth, » Indiana Re&

Bil. (1968), — Ind. App. —, 242 N.E. 2d 642 reversed the

case of State ex rel Owens U 40th Judicial District (1931);

2a. Ind. 354, 4 N.E,, 423, dealing with the Veto power

of the Governor of ‘Indiana. This is incorrect. That opinion

merely limits the Governor to the veto power given hinr

under the Indiana € ‘onstitution. State ex rel, Owens-r. 40th

Judicial District (19! 31), 202 Ind. oo4, 174 NE. 422, simply

said, if an-act which contains neither an emergency clause

nor an effeetive date is not promulgated pursuant to stat-

ute, it, has not become law. It did not, extend the Governor’ oo

veto power. met 4, . x

3. The ‘third ‘ana fourth par sgraphs ‘of page 9 of the

Petition say that on October 21, 1969, the Appellate Coyrt

‘

entered its first male: “This j is: incor rect. The only miaui-

date ever entered in this case w as the J udgmient of Decem-

ber-31,-1968. On October 21, 1969, after giving ‘the Peti;

tioner's ten’ months to voluntarily comply with the mandate,.

the Appellate Court entered an order giving the Petitioners

a date. certain. by which to’ comply or be. found in con-

tempt. of Court. “Lhe Court amended this order due ‘to

Incorrect terminology, and-then on two subsequent occa-

sions gave the Petitioners additional time in which to com->,

yly. On each oceasion the Petitioners failed and refused to,

spon with these ORGCTS. ss es

The third’ and fourth paragraphs on page 10 of the:

P ctitio’ should be stricken or refused cousideration, sitice

the propriety of any action under Rule 70.4 of the. Indiana

Rules of Civil Procedure has nev er before been raised by

the Petitioners, The only purpose for its” Imsertion is’ to

cloud the main issue. . .

ARGUMENT

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT.

NONE OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS PRE-

‘SENTED BY THE” PETITIONERS WERE

PROPERLY OR. SEASONABLY RAISED FOR THE !

PURPOSE OF A WRIT OF CERTORARI

The Petitioners have pointed out tht Petitioner

a ton took officer on Dee mbe Je 1968, and that virious

others amone-the Petitioners took af tice In January, 1969,

The question of substitution was tirst raised by the

Petitioners on November 20, 1969, almost . Year after:

the substituted Petitioners took office, during Which time

at feast sixteen pleadings of tarious/sorts had been Tiled

by the attorne v for thie & etitioners, including:

1. Appellants’ Petition ‘to Transfer dated. January

10, 1969, . ~

Z es Petition for choaring dated Janui AVY,

) ‘ :

Appellants’ Petition for Oral Argument dated:

January 13, 1969, .

4. *Appellants’ Petition for Oral Argument dated ,

January 14, 1969.

Appellants’ Petition for Instractions dated , Jan-

uaty 14, 1969.

or < e . ee . AT

6. Appellants” Motion to Dismiss Petition for Order

~ for Payment of Funds Pursuant to: Judgment

dated April 11, 1969, c

Appellants* Brief-in Opposition to Order for Pay-

=~]

———

ment’ of Funds Pursuant to Pe mneeneer dated: Sep-,

“tember 13,190... ;

S. Appellants’ Petition for nlarg xement of Time

©. dated October 29, 169,

9.- Appellants’ Motion to Vaerte Order dated October

29, 1969.

10.0 Appe are Request for Oyal Argument and Karly

| ene Ruling dated November 4 1969, . “

11. Appellants’ Peiitien- to Vacate Order dated

| | November 7, 1909.

“12. Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing dated Novem-

=. ADI ' 8 '

ber 10, 1960. :

13. -Appellants* Petition for Sti iy of Hxeen on dated

November LO, 1969, ;

_ 1A Appellants* Petition for Transfer dated November

~ 10, 1960)

15. Appellants? Petition for Stay of Execittion dated

November. 14, 1960. Bs

1h. Appe ‘ants’ Motion for BD sequalif |e cation dated No-

vember 1s, 16H.

The substituted petitioners” names were first: placed in

the caption of this case on October 21, 1969, The Peti- |

bloners thereafter filed nine ple dings in the* Indiana

Appellate Court and the’ Indiana Supreme -Court before

raining thy question of the propriety of the substitution.

However, even when the question of substitatjon was

first raised, the argument of denial of due process: was

“not raised by the Petitioners,

“The Tndiana Appellate Court in its opinion in State er

rel, Mass. Transp. *.tuth, ve. Ind. Revenue Bd. (1969)

Ind., App. =. 959 N. EK. 20-725, at. pages 128 -730“foéund,

among other re axons, that by appearing volimtarily the

Petitioners Had waived any objections to improper substi-

tution. |

- The Petitioners then filed Petition to Transfet is.

case ‘to the Indiana Supreme Colts on January 5. 1970,

and still did not jaise the\question of denial of due process,

It was only, when the Petitioners filed a Petition for

Re liearing, after refusal ly: the Indiana Supreme Court. to

Srant transfer, that the- ne process question was finally

raised. That was on Feliruz ary 24, 1970."

First and foremost, the Appellate Court correctly ruled

that the substitution of the| Petitioners Was proper, Sec-

ond, under Ho circumstances ‘an it be said that thes Federal

Question of denial of due phocess, Was raised at the -trial

level in this case, and thus under Indiana law, it Was not

seasonably raised. ae ae *

RB. Tid Rule 19 FY (23) of tha Indiana Rules of ( ‘ivil Pro-.

‘cedure’ Was not int effect when ne substitution ‘of the Peti-

tioners took place. It sshould— not he considered germaine

- to the, issue of substitution, Nor is the United States

Hepes Court the pl we to initiate the question of it

Constitutionality, that question havitre Never yet been

raised in any state ¢ ourt in Indiana, .

C. On February 26, 1970, -the Hvtian apnell ite Court

made an order which is set out .in Petitioner's Appendix

pages A-1 to A-12. State er on Mase Transp. Auth, vs

Indiana Revente ae (19%0), a ea App. —, 255 N.E.

2 833. . per: | ‘ ie a:

The Order provided in part that:

ae IS FURTHER ORDER TS 1), ADJUDGED AND

‘DECREED that. the said Tr ndy: Slaby Etherton,

Ay as |

Fe 10

7 | aes >

Auditor of the Staic of dndiana, on or before Decem- ’

ber 22, 1969, draw and issue a warrant ‘upon the

General Func of the Treasury of the State of-Indiana

for astm equal to ninety percent (906°) of the amount

so computed and. certified and that she immediately

present aid deposit said warrant with the Clerk of the.

Suprenie ane Appellate Comets: — |

IT IS FURTHER ORDE RED, ADIU DGKED AND

— DECREED that the ¢ ‘lerk of the Supre me and Appel-

. late Courts shall, upon. receipt of said warrant, dis.

burse the same as follows: ie ea ‘.

¥ Said amount so deposited with the Clerk of the

Supreme and Appellate. Courts of) Indiana shall be

disbursed by said Clerk to. The Mass Transportation ,

“Authority of Greater Indianapolis, a municipal .cor-

poration, loss the amount to. be disbursed to the at-

torneys of “record for. The Mass , Transportation

Authority of Greater Indianapolis, a municipal cor-.

poration, in satisfaction of an attorneys, lier -by said

attorneys for ‘the plaintiff on February 2s, 1969.

»)

ra The Clerk of the Supreme and - Appellate Courts

shall, upon receipt of the wararnt representing* ninety

—pereent (90% ) ef the State Inheritance Taxes remitted:

to the Indiana’ Department of State Revenue, Inheri-

tince Tax Division, from Marion County, Indiana,

which were deposited in the ‘Inheritance Tax Account’,

of the State Treasury for the period January 1, 1967,

throweh and including December 31, 1968, disinarse ten

percent (10%) of said funds so: remitted for-the period

heginhing January 1, 1967, to and including: December

31, 1967, to the ‘attorneys of record for tie Mass

Transportation Authority of Greater Indianapolis, a

municipal corporation, which ten percent. (10%) dis-—

bursement. is in satisfaction of an attorneys’ lien, filed

“by the attorneys of ‘record for the: plaintiff herein

on February 28, 1969.

The Order to the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate

Courts ordering him to pay attorney fees was pursuant to

. \ | ° i Pa cliceacigrarahi gular

Cre an Sane Oeiig’™

a Notice of "Tetoat to ‘Hold: silane > Lien filed be Rich.

ard M. Givitt,: and John F, Neff on I ebr uary 28, 1969,

Pe,

Mtached to the Notice of hitent to Hold Attorneys” Lien

was a copy of the conjract entered into between the Mass

Transportation Authority and Joli Fr. Neff and Richard.

M. Givan, the attorney s providing that the attorneys re-

ecive a contingent. fee of te per cent (105% ) of the amount

received, by the Mass Transportation | Authority during

the first vear the law is in ef fect.

The same order .was first’ entered by this Court on

October 21, 1969, but vacated. It Was emlered again on

Nove ‘mber 6, 1969, It contained the s: ame words.regarding

payment of attorney fees as. did the order ‘of I ebruary 26,

1970.

On November, 10° 1969, ihe Petitioners filed a petition

to transfer the order of November 6, 1969, to the Indiana

Supreme Court. This pe tition’ Was denied on November 17,

1969, by a vote-wt : 3 to : Ww th ene abstention. Nowhere j in

the petition to transfer Was phe question of attomey’s fees

raised. f

16, 1969, after numerous delays. The portion regarding

payment of attorney fees again was in exactly the same

terms as in, all the other orders. Again, on January 5, 1970,

when the Petiii tiers filed a Petition to Transfer the _opin-

ion and order of Deceinher 16, 1969, to the Indiana Supreme

Court, the question of attorney s fees Was net raised,

The Appellate Court renewed this order on December:

ar . P 12

Qn February 24, 1970, when the ee filed a

Petition for Rehearing’ wl the Supreme Court's ‘denial ‘of

the petition to re anster the Appellate Court’s order of

December T6, 1969, the. attorney feo.question was first

raised. This was fully a year alter thaguttorney’ s lien had

beer filed, an Lor appeal toolate. ‘

Unfortunately, the ‘nhove narrative was characteristic of

the method by whieh the Petitioners operated: throughout.

this case. Whenever they thought up a new argument to

an oldlquestion, the ‘yy would file a new petition. to trahster,

-or a petition for rehearing, eve r though the old argument

had long since heen decided, and time for appeal had

long Sites passed. Appeals*in Indiana cannot be handled

on a piece-meal biasis. Any oljections not, originally and

fPrst time on appeal. a aie

Driukwate roe. Likewberry (1946), 224 Ind. &4, 64

NB. 2d 309: ; :

“Asim + Stoker (1960), 151 Ind. Aepp. 195, 166.

NiB. 2d S887;

Bartow’. State, (1960), 240 Ind. 257,163 N.E. 2d

G00, GOL, Ns 7

The -rule in Indiana is that a question must be raised

at the trial level in order to be preserved on appeal. ih

z “ : , , ‘ 3 a Hise

_° JL. Case Co. rv. Sandefur (964), 245 Ind. 218,

197 NB. 2d 519.

LD Iadiana Law Euvyclapedia, Appeals, & 71} p. 577.

Constitutional questions are ao exception to the general

rie and cannot “ordinarily be raised for the first time on

appeal.

tidnely made are waived and cannot be brought up for the.

ea |

“ is

Voelkel & Berry (1966), 139 Ind. preg 267, 218 N.E,

2d 924.

1 ludiaua Law siti ie ta, too Sia, PB. 329. -

_ Le apn an

The United States ‘Mone n\e Court will not Lennie y pe

* tions not season: thly ise doin accordance with State Law.

Ede Iman in. Pe ople of State of California, Cal. i ae

do44U 5. ad us S.Ct. 293, 295, 97 L.Ed. 387

PETITIONER ETHERTON WAS: NOT IN ANY

WAY EXCUSED FROM OBEYING THE MANDATE

»OF THE INDIANA APPELLATE aaa

The Petitioner, Etherton; ‘clainis: that’ she was excused

- trom obeying the Mandate: of the: Appellate Court, and

that in coercing her to pay the Respondent by means -of

contempt of court proceedings, the © ourt denied. her due

process’ of law by. being unfair and abusive toward her

and foreing her to Violate her oath of office,

a maint Lis. that she was excused for the following

‘ASONS 3

ar s

1.) She was not properly substituted asa party.

2. The Mass Transportation’ Authority had ceased to

exist and the Legislature had not specifically given the

proceeds of this suit-to any ageiey.

3. The eranting Gt attorneys fe es made the entire order

of the Appe ‘Hate Court void.

+, T ‘he repeal of the law nnder which the Auditor’ ‘s duty

arose justit ied herrefusal to tur ther obey the mandate.

7 .

Bi A ns

«0. The Auditor had sworn to uphold the Constitution,

asd iin tier opinion the Court’s mandate was uneonstitu-

tion: il, so she had‘a right to ignore it.

All-of these reasoie are patently: invalid, and some ‘of

then downright frightening. > |

| ; — ‘AUDITOR WAS PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED

| AS A PARTY |

Aside from the fact: that this question Was not season-

ably raised: by the. Petitioners, substitution was properly

made for several reasons. The petitioners hadgentered gen-

eral appearances by. filing numerous pleadings. The: Peti-

tioners’ were’ State officials and took their’ office lis

pendens, and were ‘bound ‘to know of the’ suits: pending

against their predcééessor, They stepped into the shoes of:

theyformer office holder with all of the notice he hid.

~- This si an ac at length in State ex rel. Mass.

. Sfeictengi Auth. ov. dndiana Revenue Bd, (1969), — Ind. s\pp.

—#, 253 N.E. aL re pat pages 728 to730, transfer dle nied.

The, ruling hy the highest”court of a state that a substi- —

tution. of defendants was properly made under state law

and _practices is, conclusive’ and: binding on the United

States Supreme Court. orice |

. _ Boston r, Jiickson, Mass. 1922, 260 U.S. 309, 45 S.Ct.

oat OCD. Rd. 274, !

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF

THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS HAD INHERITED

THIS SUIT AND THE PROCEEDS THEREFROM.

Under Nets of 1969, Ch. 173, S314 as foutid in Burns’ «

“Indiana Statutes Annotated (1970. — ), Seetion 48-9213,

pendix page A-2). .

(Hedpondent’ s Ist Appendix, pages --- to — ah and Acts of -

1969 ‘Ch. 173. § 100, ‘as found in Burns’ Indiana Statutes

Annotated (1970 Supp.) Section 48-9353, (Respondent’s Ast

Appendix pages — to’ +) as of January 1, 1970, all of

the powers, shiieuticns and duties of the Mass T ransporti \-

tion authority including. all pending rights and liabilities

relating to that Board’ were transferre zt to the Deyartme nt -

of Transportation of the ity of Indianapolis, and jthe Mass

T ransportation Authority ceased. to exist. '

—One-oef the powers of the ees Authority <-

Was-the right to bring suit in-its corporate ‘name-as a

Munigipar’ orporation, Acts of 1967, ch. 311, 63 as

amended, as found in Burns’ Indiana Statutes Annetated

(1970 Supp.), Section 26-3 33 ale 1), (Respondent's Ap-

The Legislature could not have. been more specific. It is.

not incumbent upon the fevislature to set out éach specific

lawsuit in order that the’ right to pursue the lawsuit be

transferred to the new ageney.

“THE GRANTING OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES HAD NO

EFFECT UPON THE ORDER — ;

‘Awain, while the question of payment of attorney fees

‘was not seasonably raised ‘by the Pe titioners, the Respond.

ents feel weap rie to point out the crroneousness of the’

Petitioners’ ar gument.

~The rule in the case of DONECH YV. DONEC H (1938),

“O14 Ind. 559. pp. 962 to 564, 16 N.E. 2d2877, 879 to 880

cited by Petitioners: was tlt in a divorcee case an: order:

of the court sequiring the husband to pay his wifes

attorney. fees directly. to the wife’ Ss een Was void,

a*® : ‘ * ‘

« 2 re . .

_ ment. ° ean) oe 4.

and a,contampt citation cannot lie from refusal to obey

suchian order.” 7 P

= 2 .:

This ¢: Ise Was spe citie “ally ‘overrnied by a 1939) Amend-

nrent to Aats of 1Sideth. 43, & 17 ws found in “Baans. Ind.

Stat. Annotated (1968 Hepl:), "seas 38-1216, and i}

longer the I AW.

The BPonech rie is not ‘applicable anyway because these

were supplementary. proceedings in which the Court nor-

mally orders the J Yefendant to make payment to the Clerk

of the Court, who’ them distributes thie proceeds of the judg- :

The ‘Petitioners also cited the case of Scars Roebuck ,

& Co. State (1968). 248 Ind. 169, 22) NN... 2d 175. —

tee “Teiliaiag Supreme/Conrt, enunciated, the rule that.

order to: aivard attorneys fees there rust be some evidence .

in the record on the subject of the. amount, adequacy and °

reasonableness of the attorney fees. Lack of such evidenee

is fatal. b “Saree i

Our case & completely distingnishable from’ Sears Roe-

buck & Co, v. State, supra. Ilere an attorney’s lien was

tiled eointaining in it ihe contract ‘between the Responde nts

anel the attorneys which prov ided for fees,

Certainly, this) was adeaqnate fevidene upon which to:

_ base an attorney fee.

i ° ’ .

‘In addition, if the client knows of the attorney’s lien

as entered on the judiment (theeRespondent Wr: Served a

copy at the time of filing) and assents to the amount of

the fee claimed by the attorney after the services are

17 :

. ee ae -_ ~2 c

~ rendered, this is cs td fix the amount, and the

‘client is hound thereby, and | ‘the clerk is under a -daty to

pay it fu the attorney. Seana po

. Putinan OP Tennyson (1875) »), DOT nd. 45;

State ev. plecke (1917 j, 7 Ind. App. 23, 116 NIE.2.

The Responde nt has ever Katiod fhe quceion: ‘of the

~attorne vs fee though a, voar has passed. This sure ‘ly must.

he considered assente tf the’ Responde nt cannot now raise *

the question, yes should not he able t to-raise it.

ve Se.

. Ke

‘THE REPEAL OF THE LAW UNDER waren THE >

AUDITOR’S DUTY. AROSE DID NOT JUSTIFY

“HER REFUSAL ‘TO: FURTHER OBEY THE.

‘MANDATE

_—

The Petitioners: argument on pages 21 and 22 of their

petition’ is based upon the premise ‘that “Where defen

ants. are order ‘od to perform certain duties enjoined by va

xpecifie statute and thereafter the, statute is repealed, the

proceedings. will terminate.”

In other warde, let the Mass Transportation Authority

have its judgment. The Legisliture ean repeal thé statute

“and there hy ereet a mysterious, invisible w all®hetween the:

judgment tind its: enforcement, and this wall will Protect

the Auditor from the effects of the mandate.

. The. Petitioners the no ciHed four. cases to enforce their’.

- arguments, State vr. Crawford, 105 So. H6, 90 F la: 264;

Cutecomp v. Cir Mayor, eter 60. Iowa 156, Ad NW. 214; _

oF Mootey v. Drainage District Nof tof R ichardson County.

113 Neb. 197, 274 NW. 467° Tubbs: v. Linn; 70 NW.

‘ . > ‘ f j .

oro -

213. .?

now

a .

Judgment everacerued,

: ° , ; . = 18

“

Three of these cases have no application here, all for

the ‘same reason: no final’ judginent. had been rendered

before the repeal of the’ legislation» under : whieh the

mandamus actions were pending. |

~The vase of State v. Crawford, 90 Ff la. 264, 105 So. 446,

dealt with an alternate writ of m: dams which. is not a

final judgment. The court: specific ally noted that. as long

as the legislature repealed a statute establishing a duty and

the repealer came before the peremptory writ (final judg-

ment), an alter nate writ. could he dismissed.

The same was true inthe case of Cutcomp cv. Utt, Mayor,

ete., 60 towal 156,14 N.W, 214. In that case the mandamus

petition was not filed until the’ day before the amendatory

ordinance went into-affeet, and there Was nQ final’ judg-

ment. It; too, could be dismissed, act e) -

Also, in Tubbs 1 r Linn, 70 x. \V. 2a 3é2, ‘the Commis- .,

sloner’s discretion, to issue. permits had been withdrawn

~ by statute bi fore the mandamus was issued, so no final

» °

The Petitioners cite the case-of Mooney e. Drainage

District No. 1 of Richardson Cointy, 113: Neh, 197, 274

‘<N.W,. 467, however; aes apparently -overlooked the fact

that - it was ed in 154 Neb, 192, 278 NW 368 and

the ele and re nt cited. by Petitioners Was va-

In rehearing . at 278 NW, at’ page 371 the

aaeee :

po * ?

cated. *

Nebraska Suprenie ourt stated:

” wo

~s §'The power to opewor vacate judemenits is CSSen-

tially. judicial. Therefore, on the great constitutional

principle of the ‘Separation of powers and -functtons

of the three departments of government, it cannot be

exercised by the legislature.- While a statute may in-

deed declare: what judgments shall in future be subject

to be: vacated, or when or how or for what causes, if

‘

Me edegth ody ae

‘annot apply retrospe clively {oa judgment already

rendered and which had becdmy final and unalterable -

by the court before its passage. * * * ItAvould be an

unwarranted inv asion of the province of the judicial

depar {me nt.’

| A Petition for ce riorari was denied in died ise by the.

' nited. States Suprenie Court. 300 TLS. 622 59 S.Ct. 84,

So iF Kd S4.

This case, sited by the Petitioners, is precisely to the

same effect as-the opinign of the Indiana Appellate Court

in Stdte ex rel, Mass, Trausp, Autho«. Ind, Ree. Bd. (A869),

— Ind. App, —,. 203 NE. 2d 725, where it held thet in the

absence of a final judgment the Legisleture could properly

repeal a publie right retroactively, but-that the legislature

would be violating the doctrine of separation of powers

hy retroactively repealing a final judgmént™ of a court.

It then held that the right to enforce thie judgment is a

part and parcel of the: Jjudgmic nt and that. the Legislature :

could not, by retroactive repealer, wipe out the fruits of the .

Judgment anymore than it could .wipe out: the judgment’

itself. The court at 253 N K. 2ud 730, note 6 said:

‘Tt is weutlen by authority, that after-a final deeree — -

upon a trial “of the merits of the ease, by which, the

rights of the parties are settled, such further orders

‘or decrees as may be. necessary will be made to, carry

into effect the very rights decided upon the tridl of

the merits of the case, and that court will hear and_.

determine. and establish by order or decree anything

necessary, that may be auxiliary to, or in execution

, of, the final decree on the merits. ””

Thus, when the didiana Appellate Gourt in its decision of

December 31, 1968,’ (State ex rel, Mass. Transp, Auth. v!

‘Indiana Rev. Bd. (1968), — Ind. App. —, 242 N.E. 2d 642)

found that House Snrolled Aet No, TSTS of the 1967 Tndi-

‘ana General Assembly was the law, it beeame the law for

all purposes, and any inheritance tax funds due the coun. >

ties in Inditima up toe that time could not: thereafter be

taken away from them by any subsequent repealing legis-

lation. The Auditor could net be excused from complying

by any subsequent action by. the Legislature, Since the

judgment was in the? form of a mandate to the Petitioners,

the proper remedy in exeeution of the mandate was an-

order to the proper officer to comply and then contempt

procecdings H the officer refused. This is exactly what

the court did.

THE STATE AUDITOR MAY NOT PLACE HER

OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE INDIANA AND

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ABOVE THAT

OF A COURT

The Auditor was under a duty to support the Constt-

tutions of Indiatia and the United States; This means she

must obe ¥ these Cons Litutions, not as she inte rprets them,

but ree io judicial interpretation,

; 42 line Jur, . Public Administrativé Law, * GS,-p. B80,

— Note 173 a .

State ex rel. Atautie. Coast Line R. Co. ve. Board

vt k quali: ers, S4A Flat 5 OO, 94 So. OS1, 20 ALR Sov.

. 5

“The Pnidiana Appellate Court) and. Indiana Supreme.

Court have each consistently sgid that the Auditor would

not be violating her oath of offiee by compliing with the

mandate of the Appellate Court,

’

. *

The Indiana Appellate Court in its opinion in State ex

rel. Mass. Transp.: Authority v..Indiana Revenue Bd.

(1969) — Ind. App, —,. 253 Nv. 2d 725, at pages 733. to

36 gave a lengthy explanation of why there was an ap-

propriation; that the appropriation was made by the Leg-

Islature, that the inheritaneé lax account was part of the

General Fund. (See Respondent’s Appendix page A-2 to

N-4.)° |

The Auditor cannot, even by affidavit, place her judicial

‘interpretations over those of the Appellate Court, in an

attempt to justify refusal to comply with a court order.

Article 7, Section 1 of the Constitution of Indiana states

“The judicial power Of the State shall be vested in a

Supreme Court, in Circuit Courts and “such other Courts

as the General Assembly may establish.’’ Sar

The Howey to interpret the ‘Constitution and stattites is ,

a judicial power. The Courts are the guardians of the

Constitution. 3 3 :

Marbury v. Madison (1803), 1 Craneh 137, 2 L.Ed.

a ee ie. . :

The Appellate Court.in its opinion of December 16, 1969; ~

“State ex rel. Mass. Transp. Auth. v. Ind. Rev. Bd. (1969),

~— Ind. App. —, 253 N.EZ2d (25) determined that House. |

Knrolled et No. 1818 as the law in the State of Indiana

up to December 31,1968, despite the legislative attempt to

repeal it retroactively, and that the Act itself constituted

an appropriation-out of the General Fund. If the Auditor

was dissatisfied with this opinion, ‘her recourse was. to the

Indiana Supreme Court, and’ then to the United States

Supreme Court, if a Federal Question existed.

99 -

Instead, the Auditor, out of hand, decided that the Appel-

late Court's opinion Wits wrong, and that her oath of offic e

eave her the 1 jeht to refuse to comply w ith it.

A more complete misunderstanding of Separation ‘of

P ower would he hard.tof imagine.

Thereafter the Auditor: was cl in contempt of the

or Court. If the Court had dome otherwise, “orderly. oo

state gover nment in Indiana would hav ecceased.,

‘THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT THE PROP]

PARTIES TO RAISE THE QUESTION | OF.

ATTORNEY FEES.

The Clerk of the’ Supreme anil Tencil ite ¢ Fonird, who was

actually. ordered to pay the attorney fees, the Department

I Transportation, ora tax payer “ita tax, payers suit

were the only ones who could have objected to the fees.

The Petitioners were not ordered to pay the aftorney

fee and were in no way responsible for it,

In order to be granted certiorari by the United States

Supreme Court the, Petitioners must show that the enforee-

ment of the judement would deprive, themn, not others, of a

right arising under the Federal Constitution or laws. -

‘Liberty Warchouse Coe. Burky T.S..Coop. M. Assn.,

Ky.1923, 276 U.S. 71, 48 S.Ct. 291, 7 (2 L.Ed. 473; Smith v.

Indiana, Ind. 1903,-191 U S. 188, 24 S.Ct. o1, 48 L.Kd. 12%

Marshall v. Dye, Ind. 1913, 231 U.S. 250, 34 ye 92

58 L.Ed. 206. | |

23. | Ee

THE: NON FEDERAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH

THIS CASE IS BASED ARE ADEQUATE AND THE

FEDERAL. GROUNDS UPON WHICH THIS CASE

IS. BASED ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH |

FOR THE Us. SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW |

—

“The Ove eidine question in ‘thie Case Is, whether a state

official, ina state, whose const@ution contains a separation

of powers clause, may excuse himself from complying with

a mandate of a court with which he disagrees,

The other question which arises reg gards substitution of

parties, -

. These are purely state questtons.

The Petitioners have not even set out how the paynient.

of attorneys fees gives rise toa Federal question.

~ . Respondent has attempted to show in this Brief that each

of the questions presented was answered correctly by the.

Appellate and Supreme Court, and that several lone and

thoughtful opinions were written covering eachyjuestion.

It must be noted that the party who was found in con-

tempt of Court was botli a high state official and a woman. —

and that the Appellate Court gave ‘her eve ry opportunity

‘tobe heared and purge herself. of contempt before it was

forced to take’ such drastic action. W hen it found her

guilty of contempt of court the reasons were iron-clad.

Finally, the Petitioners claim that they were unable to

obtain review because of the consistent two-two split (one

abstention) of the 'udges of the Indiana Supreme Court.

in denying earlier transfers and rehearings.

‘But this Petition for Writ of Certiorari is solely from

contempt proceedings of February 25, 1970, Transfer and

rehearing were dismissed by the Iidiana Supreme Court

by identical three to one votes (one abstention). The claim

that a three to one vote was an inability to obtain review

and was therbfore a ‘denial of due process is certainly in-

substantial. 94 ' :

| , ee

? CONCLUSION

Broadly stated,. the Respondent. feels*the principle of

law involvéd i in this case is that under the Indiana, Consti-

tution, the three branches of government are co-equal and

their powers are extlusive. Within this doctrine is the rule

that the Legislature cannot éradicate a final judgment of

a court nor ean an auditor place her interpretation of the:

constitution and statutes above those of the court and use -

-her interpretation as an excuse for refusing to oley the

court: ’s mandate. . Ef Sens: ;

More particularly, and as it relates to the Potitidn,

questions of law, meluding constitutional questions must -

be timely raised or they are waived. They cannot’ be. first

raised on appeal or on petition for'rehearing. 3

’ The Petitioners were properly substituted, and then were. °

given every opportunity to have their case heard and -re-

viewed. W hen the. Anditor still refused te abide by the

court orders, the court had no choice but to find--her ins

contempt. The Petitioners w rere given more than their day

in Court.

> . Prd .

Any F ederal questions w tikeh: have been raised are either

non-ex xistent or totally insubstantial: — ve,

. oe

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel: - * * * Ronatp §S. Lieper

P ; JOHN F. NEFF

LIEBER & NEFF ' 322 Circle Tower ‘Building

322 Circle Tower Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

DONALD E. BOWEN

mpc MYERS, NORTHAM & 506. ‘ISTA Peer Building

‘ 150 Wes arket Stree

506 ISTA Center Building = indlanapelia, ‘oo Teg :

150 West Market Street

Indianapolis, indiana 46204 Haroip H. KOHLMEYER, JR.

Corporation* Counsel,

' City of Indianapolis

, City-County Building .

F Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Responden ts

“

. APPENDIX

‘A.

\Each county treasurer shall make’ a report, under oath,

to the state ‘board of tax Commissioners on the first day

af January, April, July and October; of each year, of all

taxes reecived by him in the three (3) months next pre-

se ceding under this act ($$ 7-2401-7-2411, 7-2412a-7-2442), in

"resident decedents’ estates, and credited to: the ‘state of

Indiana, stating for what estate and by whom and when

~paid. The ‘form of such report sbi | be prescribed by the.

state board of accaunts. At the sanie time the county audi-

tor shall issue his Warrant ‘payable to the treasurer of.

state for, such inheritance taxes, iuterest and penalties as

are duethe state of Indiana complying with the provisions

of seetion-7 (§ 7-2407) of ‘this act, whicli warrant shall be

stamped and countersigned hy the. county treasurer as re-

quired by law ‘and transmittéd to the state board of tax

commissioners With his said report. The secretary pf, the

board shall receipt and account for all warrants collected

under the provisions Of-this act and shall deposit the same.

when received with the state treasurer.in a special account

to be created and, known as tlie Inheritance Tax. Account.

Quietus. shall be issued by the auditor of state to the state

board, of tax commissioners at thie close’ of. each month

upon terms and conditions established for similar boards or

commissions. It shall-be the duty of the state board of tax

commissioners to. audit the reports provided for by, this

section. Shortages, as disclosed by said audit, shall he re-

ported to and promptly covered * by coutity treasurers

and auditors concerned by issuance of warrants for the

balance due. Excess. payments as disclosed by the audit

ws A-1 ae > : on

A-2

of reports shall be, refunded by the board im the manner

set out in section 17 (§ 7-2417) of this act and nof paid

into the state board of tax, commissioners. Por all sueh -

taxes collected hy a county treasurer and not paid into the °~

state board of tax commissioners within thirty (30) days

from the time herein required, he shall pay interest at the

rafe of ten (10) per ecentum per annum, for w hich he shall

Acts-of 1931, ch. 75, See. 44, as “Amended, being Burns’

Section 7-244. 6. ee a

as B.

, s.

Powers + of, Authority (a) Subject to the “limitations

expressly <et forth in this act (25 56-3 31-36-8455), the

_Anthority is authorized and empowered to:

. f

- (1) Sue and be sued in any court of competent juris-,

diction in its corporate ame as a municipal corppra-

tion. Service of process shall be made by leaving a’

copy of the document to he served at the priticipal

* office of the Authority with the person in charge

thereof or with the executive director ;

Acts of 1967, Ch, 311, § 3; Burns? 36-3433. ae

State’ Funds defined.—Any and all revenue hereafter

acerning to the state treasury by virtue of any tax levy or

tax levies, fixed by law or by the state beard of tax com-

missioners, as ‘hereinafter prov ided, shalt be kept in the

following fugds: '

(a) The generalfund; . -~ ~ re enilies,

(b) The state common school tevenue fund ;

Bee ke: AB 7 : a

(ec) The Indiana W orld War Memorial bind

(d) The Indiana state teachers’ retirement fait:

(e) Thé Indiana state’ board of agr iculture fund ; and

(f) The: Dunes Park fund. | es |

Acts of 1925, ch. 79, See. 1, being Burns’ Section 61-t0t

D. |

From and after the first ‘day of October, 1925, in addi- —

tion to the, revenue’ which accrues to and is a part of the. _

general fund -of . the state, as now | provided by law; the

general fund: of the state shall consist Oly .

. : * : * * * &

- Seventh. | All inheritance taxes collection. under and

pur suant, -to law. : :

_ Acts of 1925, Ch. 28, Sec. rt hades Siices’ Section 61. 202,

¢ x ‘ i. > = mae ;

¥ ae api 2) - EB. ‘ga . ‘ e

All revenue aceruing to the state treasury eby virtpe’ of

the ‘tax levy as fixed by chapter 201: of the Acts of the

general assembly of 1921, shall .be paid into and . Shall

constitute the state common school revenue fund, and shall

be apportioned as now provided by: law. All‘rey enue acerus

.ing to the state treasury by virtue of the tax jev y as fixed :

-by section fifteen of dsinhes 50 of the Acts of the special

‘session of the general asseinbly of 1920, shall be paid into .

and shall constitute the Indiana W orld War Memorial fund,

and_ shall be expended as provided by law. All reverue |

accruing to ‘the state treasury by v irtue off the tax levy as

fixed by section * three of chapter 6 of the Acts of. the - .

‘ general ‘assembly of 1923, shall he paid into and shall eou- .

—

. . ~

“\s SION, in any: ‘court of record im this ‘state

, -A-4 . .

. ; ball . ae: ; ag 7 - 7 : °

‘stitute. the Indiana state board of agriculture fund and

shall be expended as now provided by law. All revenue

aceruing.to the state treasury by virtue of the tax levy.: as

fixed by section one (< $\60-808) ‘of chapter 94 of the Acts

of the. general assembly of 1923, shall be paid into and‘shall

constitute the Dune Park fund, and. shall he- expended as

now proyided by law. All revenue accruing to the state

treasury by virtue ‘of a tax levy to be fixed by the state

board of tax commissioners. under and .by virtue of the

provisions of section four (§ 8-4: 906) of chapter. 256 of the

Acts of. the general gtssembly of 1921, shall be paid into °

and shall constitute the Indiana State teachers’ retirement

fund, and shall he: expende mT as provided by law. All other,

revenue accruing tothe state treasury by virtue of any

levy us fired by law or. by .the state board of tax com- |

missioners: ‘shall be paid into and shall constitute the gee.

eral fund, (Our emphasis. ) -

Acts of 4925, Ch. Lie See. 2 being Burn’s ontiont 61- 102.

: j > ; me 1 . @

: \ \ ‘

a w..

‘Ga

as Lien of Attotngy.— —Any.attorney age 4 his profes-

Il be entitled

‘to hold -a “Hien, for his fees, on any judgment rendered in

‘favor of any person or persons employing such attorney to

obtain the san Provided, that such attorney, within sixty

(60) days oe the time. such judgement shall have: been

rendered, enter in writing upon the docket or record where-.

‘in the judgmoeat is recorded, his intention to hold a lien

thereon,. together with the amount of jis claim, and if an

appeal is taken on such judgment, such lien may be entered

within sixty (60) .days fr om the date the opinion of the

higher court is recorded in the office -of the clerk of the

A-5

trial court Or from the date of final judgment where the

cause is reversed and retired.

_ Acts of 1865 (Spec. Sess.), ch. 59, Sec. 1 as amended,

being Burns’ Section 4-7416. ,

aaa

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.