Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

HOWARD ET AL. v. ROBINETTE ET AL.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Torts — Governmental Powers and Functions — Operation of Electric Light Plant — Supplying Electricity to Public — Not Governmental Function. — Where a municipality owned and operated a light plant for the purpose of supplying electric energy and water to the public of the city and community, it was not exercising a governmental function. p. 200.

2. COURTS — Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction — Supreme Court — Transfer of Cause to Supreme Court — Erroneous Statement by Appellate Court Immaterial to Determination of Issues — Concur in Result of Appellate Court — Transfer Denied. — On petition to transfer a cause to the Supreme Court where an erroneous statement of law by the Appellate Court was not material to the determination of the issues in the cause and the Supreme Court concurred in the result reached by the Appellate Court, transfer was denied. p. 200.

PER CURIAM.

This action is here on petition to transfer under § 4-215, Burns' 1946 Replacement.

We concur in the result reached by the Appellate Court in its opinion 122 Ind. App. 66, 99 N.E.2d 110, 112. However, we do not approve of the following statement:

"In the construction of the power plant in question and the installation of the more powerful engine for needed extensions of the service pursuant to statutory authority and in furnishing electricity for public use, such as street lighting and public buildings, and water for fire protection and for use in public buildings, the municipality was exercising a governmental function."

We think this language is not a correct statement of the law applicable to the facts in this case since the evidence discloses that the light plant was owned and operated for the 1, 2. purpose of supplying electric energy and water to the public of the city and community.

See City of Logansport v. Public Service Comm. (1931), 202 Ind. 523, 532, 177 N.E. 249, 76 A.L.R. 838; City of Huntington v. Northern Ind. Power Co. (1937), 211 Ind. 502, 520, 5 N.E.2d 889, 6 N.E.2d 335; Long v. Stemm (1937), 212 Ind. 204, 209,

7 N.E.2d 188; Department of Treasury v. City of Linton (1945), 223 Ind. 363, 366, 60 N.E.2d 948.

However, this question is not material to the determination of the issues therein and transfer is, therefore, denied.

NOTE. — Reported in 102 N.E.2d 630.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HOWARD v. ROBINETTE
(Jan 4, 1952)