
    The State, on the Relation of Lingenfelter, v. The Danville and North Salem Gravel Road Company.
    Information.— Gravel Road. — Assignment of Judgment. — Information under ■section 749 of the code, against a -gravel road company, for • assigning a judgment rendered in its favor, there being no averment-thaf-full'value was not received on such assignment.
    
      Held, that the information would not lie.
    
      íSamb. — Failure to Collect Assessments. — Such sen information' will not lie against a gravel road company for collecting unly part of the amount of the assessments -on .particular pieces of land, there being no averment that the amount collected was less than the amount required to complete the road.
    
      Same. — Failure to List Lands. — Where the assessors appointed by the county commissioners, under the act of 1867, to assess the benefits to lands lying within onomile and-a half on either side-of a gravel road and within a like ■distance from the terminus, failed .to list all the lands benefited;
    
      Held, that this was not,ground -for am information .against the company.
    APPEAL from the Hendricks Circuit Court.
    This was an information under the statute, against th'e appellee, alleging that the appellee was a gravel Toad company organized in 1867, under the act authorizing the construction of plank, &c., roads, approved May 12th, 1852, and certain other acts in aid thereof; that said company having a subscription of eight hundred dollars per mile to construct Its road from Danville to North Salem, and not having a sufficient amount for the construction and completion of said road ‘between said points, the president, secretary, and directors, on the 22d of June, 1867, petitioned the board of commissioners of Hendricks county for the .appointment of three disinterested freeholders of -said county, to assess the amount of benefit to «each tract of land within one anile aud a half of said road on either side thereof, and within the like distance of the terminus thereof, and procured the appointment of three persons named as such assessors; that ■said appraisers assessed the'benefits to a portion of the land within said limits, including a tract described, owned by the relator, the benefit to which was assessed at two hundred and fifty dollars, and certain .other tracts described, belonging to other persons named, at certain amounts stated; but u that all the lands lying within the prescribed limits were ¡ not assessed by said appraisers; that said company has exercised powers not conferred upon it by law, in this, that on the 14th of June, 1869, said company, by its president, “j sold and assigned to one L. M. Campbell a certain judgment recovered by said company agaiust one William E. Ham- [ rick, in the Hendricks Court of Common Pleas, on the 22d of April, 1869, for two hundred and eighteen dollars, and } costs, being the amount of the subscription of said Ham-rick as one of the subscribers, to said company, and a part of' j the eight hundred dollars-, subscribed thereto per mile; that Í said company has released and abated from the several as- j sessments made on lands lying within said limits, and com- ’ promised with several owners of such lands named, and received from them less, than the amounts assessed as benefits-to their several tracts of land, in about the sum of four hun- { dred dollars, and thereby the relator has been damaged fif- | ty dollars; that said company did not assess-the benefits to- j each tract of land lying within the prescribed limits, as re- j required by law, to- the great damage of the relator. [
    
    Prayer, that the rights and. privileges of the company as. } a corporation be declared forféited. . j
    A demurrer to the information for want of sufficient facts I was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted; whereupon, the j plaintiff refusing to amend the complaint, judgment was- j rendered against the relator for costs. !
   Ray, J.

The allegation, that the company assigned, a judgment obtained in its.favor, amounts to nothing, because there is no averment that full value was not received ®n such assignment. Nor can the charge that the company has not collected the full amount of assessment ©n particular pieces of land avail, as the statute expressly limits the sum to be collected, not alone by the- amount of' benefit to. the land, but by the amount required to complete-the road.. Acts 186, 7, p. 168, sec. 3.

C. C. Nave, for appellant.

The failure of the assessors to list all the land benefited is not a failure of the company, but of the appraisers, who are appointed by the county commissioners and act under oath, their duties being imposed by statute. They act under no authority derived from the company, and their omisomission furnishes no cause of action against it. The remedy must be by proper proceeding to compel the appraisers to discharge their duty.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  