Blagetz v. Blagetz, No. 16586.

Docket NºNo. 16586.
Citation109 Ind.App. 662, 37 N.E.2d 318
Case DateNovember 19, 1941
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

109 Ind.App. 662
37 N.E.2d 318

BLAGETZ
v.
BLAGETZ.

No. 16586.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

November 19, 1941.


Appeal from Lake Circuit Court; John F. Cody, Special Judge.

Action by Katherine Blagetz against Emil Blagetz for a divorce, wherein the defendant filed a cross-complaint. From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals

Reversed with instructions.

[37 N.E.2d 318]

George E. Hershman and Russell A. Nixon, both of Crown Point, and Charles E. Daugherty, of Gary, for appellant.

Gavit & Richardson, of Gary, and Frank B. Pattee, of Crown Point, for appellee.


DE VOSS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant brought this action for divorce against appellee in the Lake Circuit Court alleging as cause therefor cruel and inhuman treatment. The complaint alleged further that at the time of her marriage to appellee, she was possessed of $1,000, and that by the joint efforts of appellant and appellee and said $1,000, they accumulated and became the owners of lots 7 and 8, Block 1, and lots 25 and 26, Block 7, South Broadway Addition; lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Second South Broadway

[37 N.E.2d 319]

Addition, and also lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Block 1, Carlson's First Addition in the City of Gary, Lake County, Indiana. The prayer in the complaint was for an absolute divorce and all other proper relief.

To this complaint, appellee filed an answer in general denial. Appellee also filed a cross complaint, charging appellant with cruel and inhuman treatment and further alleged that he was the owner of the property described in the complaint. The cross complaint prayed that he be granted an absolute divorce, and that he be adjudged the sole owner of the real estate described in the complaint.

Appellant filed her answer to the cross complaint in general denial. The cause was submitted to the court for trial and a judgment rendered for appellant granting her an absolute divorce and adjudging appellant and appellee the owners as tenants in common of lots 7 and 8 in Block 1 in South Broadway Addition, lots 8 to 12 inclusive in Block 1 in Carlson's First Addition, and lots 25 and 26 in Block 7 in South Broadway Addition to Gary.

The judgment further provided that appellee was the individual owner of lots 1 and 2 in Block 1, South Broadway Addition. The judgment conformed specifically to the general finding of the Court.

Appellant thereupon filed a motion to modify the judgment so that the same would decree that appellant and appellee are the owners as tenants in common of all of the real estate described in the complaint and held by them as tenants by entireties prior to and immediately before the judgment herein above was rendered. The motion to modify the judgment was overruled by the court and exception served by appellant.

Appellant filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled by the court, exception was had to such ruling and this appeal followed.

The errors assigned and relied upon for a reversal in this court are: (1) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion to modify the judgment. (2) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. The specific reasons for a new trial as set out in the motion therefor are: (1) The finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence. (2) The finding of the court is contrary to law.

The overruling of appellant's motion to modify the judgment is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Clouser v. Mock, No. 29594
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 26, 1959
    ...time as took place in this case. City of Michigan City v. Williamson, 1940, 217 Ind. 598, 600, 28 N.E.2d 961; Blagetz v. Blagetz, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 662, 665, 37 N.E.2d On the other side, it is urged by the appellants that they are not appealing from the 'pretended' judgment of December 14,......
  • Copeland v. Copeland
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 2, 1953
    ...position as he would have occupied had the marriage continued.' Keaton v. Keaton, 87 Ind.App. 39, 158 N.E. 251, 252; Blagetz v. Blagetz, 109 Ind.App. 662, 37 N.E.2d 318; Radabaugh v. Radabaugh, 109 Ind.App. 350, 35 N.E.2d 114. See also on this general question the cases of Baird v. Baird, M......
  • Languell v. Languell, No. 1067A82
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 13, 1968
    ...trial. In our opinion a motion to modify was not necessary or appropriate under the judgment in this cause. Blagetz v. Blagetz (1941), 109 Ind.App. 662, 665, 37 N.E.2d 318. Appellant specified two grounds in her motion for new trial: 1) insufficiency of evidence to support the decision and ......
  • Gray v. Miller, No. 18296
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 23, 1952
    ...Keaton v. Keaton, 1928, 87 Ind.App. 39, 158 N.E. 251; Swift v. Swift, 1923, 79 Ind.App. 199, 137 N.E. 568, Blagetz v. Blagetz, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 662, 37 N.E.2d 318; Radabaugh v. Radabaugh, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 350, 35 N.E.2d In Hunter v. Hunter, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 553, 82 N.E.2d 272, which t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Clouser v. Mock, No. 29594
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 26, 1959
    ...time as took place in this case. City of Michigan City v. Williamson, 1940, 217 Ind. 598, 600, 28 N.E.2d 961; Blagetz v. Blagetz, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 662, 665, 37 N.E.2d On the other side, it is urged by the appellants that they are not appealing from the 'pretended' judgment of December 14,......
  • Copeland v. Copeland
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 2, 1953
    ...position as he would have occupied had the marriage continued.' Keaton v. Keaton, 87 Ind.App. 39, 158 N.E. 251, 252; Blagetz v. Blagetz, 109 Ind.App. 662, 37 N.E.2d 318; Radabaugh v. Radabaugh, 109 Ind.App. 350, 35 N.E.2d 114. See also on this general question the cases of Baird v. Baird, M......
  • Languell v. Languell, No. 1067A82
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 13, 1968
    ...trial. In our opinion a motion to modify was not necessary or appropriate under the judgment in this cause. Blagetz v. Blagetz (1941), 109 Ind.App. 662, 665, 37 N.E.2d 318. Appellant specified two grounds in her motion for new trial: 1) insufficiency of evidence to support the decision and ......
  • Gray v. Miller, No. 18296
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 23, 1952
    ...Keaton v. Keaton, 1928, 87 Ind.App. 39, 158 N.E. 251; Swift v. Swift, 1923, 79 Ind.App. 199, 137 N.E. 568, Blagetz v. Blagetz, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 662, 37 N.E.2d 318; Radabaugh v. Radabaugh, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 350, 35 N.E.2d In Hunter v. Hunter, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 553, 82 N.E.2d 272, which t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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