DocketNumber: No. 2,906
Citation Numbers: 23 Ind. App. 110
Judges: Henley
Filed Date: 10/24/1899
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
There are two novel questioñs presented by ■the record in this cause: (1) Is a county liable to a city located in said county for the board of prisoners incarcerated in a city jail? (3) Is a county liable to a city located in said county for the expense of transporting prisoners from the city to the county jail?
Appellant filed claims with the board of commissioners of Madison county for the board of certain prisoners incarcerated in appellant’s jail, and for the expense of transporting certain prisoners from said jail to the county jail at Anderson in said county. These claims were, by the board of commissioners of said county, disallowed and rejected. Appellant thereupon brought this action in the circuit court of said county. The complaint is in three paragraphs. The first paragraph of complaint embraces both claims; the second seeks to recover only for the board of certain prisoners;' the third only for their transportation from the city jail to the county jail. Appellee’s demurrer for want of facts was sustained to each paragraph of the complaint.. The questions as above stated are squarely presented.
Section 8541 Burns 1894, subdivision 44, is cited by appellant’s counsel. That subdivision of the statute provides
The obligation of allowing certain prisoners to be temporarily confined in a city jail until they can be transported to the county jail is an obligation imposed upon cities by the law making power, and the expense of caring for such prisoners must be paid by the city until they are delivered into the custody of the sheriff of the county.
It is a part of the duty of a constable or city marshal to commit to jail, by order of court, prisoners in their custody, and, for the discharge of such duty, compensation is allowed by statute. §§3511, 3512, 8060, 8061 Bums 1894.
In no event under the statutes of this State could the county be held liable for such services. The courts of this State have uniformly held that a board of county commissioners cannot exceed the statutory provisions in the discharge of their various duties. Appellant’s learned counsel has failed to point out to us any statute, and we believe there is none, authorizing such an allowance" as the one claimed in this action. We find no error in the record. Judgment affirmed.