Swank v. Tyndall

Starr and Young, JJ.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part:

The majority opinion is divided into three numbered parts. For the reasons stated in parts one and two, we concur in the affirmance of the judgment.

In view of the fact that the majority opinion in parts one and two decides that the term of office involved is not an elective term, it was not necessary to decide whether § 2 of Article 15 of the Constitution of Indiana was amended in 1926, and hence was not necessary to include part three therein. It having nevertheless been included, we must dissent from what is said and from the…