Annexation of Certain Territory to City of Mishawaka, In re

Decision Date20 January 1966
Docket NumberNos. 20147,20148,s. 20147
Citation213 N.E.2d 349,138 Ind.App. 207
PartiesIn the Matter of the ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO the CITY OF MISHAWAKA, Indiana (two cases). The CITY OF MISHAWAKA, Indiana, Joseph M. Canfield, as Mayor of the City of Mishawaka, Indiana, Lynn Klaer, Vincent Moraschi, Paul S. Klein, John T. Gleissner, Joseph Simeri, Dick R. Stanley, Charles M. McKinnis, as Members of the Common Council of the City of Mishawaka, Indiana, Oscar Van De Putte, as Clerk of the City of Mishawaka, Indiana, Appellants, v. Paul MINNE, Louise Minne, John S. Connor and Margaret Connor, for Themselves and for and in Behalf of Some Sixty, More or Less, Other Property Owners affected by said Annexation, Appellees. The CITY OF MISHAWAKA, Indiana, Joseph M. Canfield, as Mayor of the City of Mishawaka, Indiana, Lynn Klaer, Vincent Moraschi, Paul J. Klein, John T. Gleissner, Joseph Simeri, Dick R. Stanley, Charles McKinnis, as Members of the Common Council of the City of Mishawaka, Indiana, Oscar Van De Putte, as Clerk of the City of Mishawaka, Indiana, Appellants, v. Roy L. CONNOR, Celia L. Connor, Vernon E. Ingle, and Phyllis J. Ingle, for Themselves and for and on Behalf of Some Forty, More or Less, Other Property Owners affected by said Annexation, Appellees.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

[138 INDAPP 208] R. Wyatt Mick, Jr., Mishawaka, Joseph A. Roper, South Bend, Chapleau, Roper, McInerny & Farabaugh, South Bend, of counsel, for appellants.

Paul J. Schwertley, South Bend, for appellees.

[138 INDAPP 214] WICKENS, Judge.

By a petition for rehearing it has been pointed out that the trial court did not find and adjudge the annexation ordinance to be invalid.

We agree that the trial court's judgment held the ordinance neither valid nor invalid, in direct language.

Our affirmance of that judgment means that no error was presented on appeal. It is not an approval of the detailed findings, but concerns only those findings which were said to affect jurisdiction under the Act in question, as raised in the appeal.

We were not asked to construe the judgment and this court is and was powerless to do so. This is said now that the opinion may be considered only in such light.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

PRIME, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and BIERLY, CARSON, FAULCONER, HUNTER and MOTE, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Economy Oil Corp. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 30, 1974
    ...State (1973), Ind., 291 N.E.2d 357; In re Annexation of Certain Territory (1965), 138 Ind.App. 207, 212 N.E.2d 393, reh. den., 138 Ind.App. 207, 213 N.E.2d 349; Fogle v. Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Co. (1961), 133 Ind.App. 95, 173 N.E.2d 668. There is a strong presumption that the le......
  • Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Osco Drug, Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 18, 1982
    ...(1973), 259 Ind. 661, 291 N.E.2d 357; In re Annexation of Certain Territory (1965), 138 Ind.App. 207, 212 N.E.2d 393, reh. den., 138 Ind.App. 207, 213 N.E.2d 349; Fogle v. Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Co. (1961), 133 Ind.App. 95, 173 N.E.2d 668. There is a strong presumption that the ......
  • Black United Front v. WASHINGTON MET. AREA TRANS. COM'N
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 27, 1970
    ...P. 602, 603 (1922) (document mislaid or lost). See also In re Annexation of Certain Territory, 138 Ind.App. 207, 212 N.E.2d 393, 396, 213 N.E.2d 349 (1965). 24 See note 4, 25 The maximum period a Section 16 stay may endure is 60 days, since the application must be filed within 30 days after......
  • Bata Shoe Co. v. City of Salem, 372A137
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • September 25, 1972
    ...in part, the Daubenspeck case, supra, the case of In re Annex., etc., et al. v. Minne et al. (1965), 138 Ind.App. 207, 212 N.E.2d 393, 213 N.E.2d 349, '. . . 'upon receipt' means after filing but prior to any other step in the proceeding. It does not describe a condition limiting or prevent......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT