Sumner v. Beeler

50 Ind. 341
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 50 Ind. 341 (Sumner v. Beeler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sumner v. Beeler, 50 Ind. 341 (Ind. 1875).

Opinion

Pettit, C. J.

This suit was. brought by the appellee against the appellants, to recover damages for an illegal arrest, imprisonment, prosecution, and causing him to be fined on the charge of being found drunk, under the ninth section of the Baxter bill of 1873.

The defendants answered jointly and separately, by the general denial and by a third paragraph in justification under the ninth section of said law.

[342]*342A demurrer for want of sufficient facts was sustained to this paragraph, and this ruling is assigned for error.

This section has been held to be unconstitutional, or, in other words, that it is not law. The State v. Young, 47 Ind., 150. No question in law is better settled, and this is admitted by the counsel for the appellants in their brief; than that ministerial officers and other persons are liable for acts done under an act of the legislature which is unconstitutional and void. All persons are presumed to know the law, and if they act under an unconstitutional enactment of the legislature, they do so at their peril, and must take the consequences.

■ There was no error in sustaining the demurrer to this paragraph of the answer.

It is also assigned for error that the complaint is not sufficient to constitute a cause of action; but this question is not pressed or relied upon, nor is there any ground for it. The complaint is clearly sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mitchell v. Drake
360 N.E.2d 195 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1977)
Saloom v. Holder
304 N.E.2d 217 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1973)
Coleman v. MITNICK, ETC.
202 N.E.2d 577 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1964)
Oölitic Stone Co. v. Ridge
91 N.E. 944 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Bedford Quarries Co. v. Bough
80 N.E. 529 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1907)
Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Mathues
210 Pa. 372 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1904)
Boales v. Ferguson
76 N.W. 18 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Tellefsen v. Fee
46 N.E. 562 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Fesler v. Brayton
32 L.R.A. 578 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1896)
People Ex Rel. McClelland v. . Roberts
42 N.E. 1082 (New York Court of Appeals, 1896)
State v. Barrett
27 Kan. 213 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 Ind. 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sumner-v-beeler-ind-1875.