Opinion
Appellate Court No. 18,104.
Transfer denied January 4, 1952.
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.
From the Whitley Circuit Court, Lowell L. Pefley, Judge.
Action by Harold Howard and others against Harold R. Robinette and others for the abatement of an alleged nuisance and for damages. From an adverse judgment defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which court reversed the judgment and a petition to transfer to the Supreme Court was filed by the appellees. (See 122 Ind. App. 66).
Petition denied.
Gates Gates, of Columbia City, and Dan C. Flanagan, of Fort Wayne, for appellants.
Bloom Bloom, of Columbia City, for appellees.
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.