Chapman v. Chapman
Citation | 109 N.E.2d 724,231 Ind. 556 |
Decision Date | 13 January 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 28866,28866 |
Parties | CHAPMAN v. CHAPMAN |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
J. Evelyn Pitschke, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John J. Dodd, Muncie, for appellee.
This appeal involves interlocutory proceedings had pending an action for divorce. The assignment of errors is as follows:
'1. The Trial Court erred in sustaining the Appellee's demurrer to the Appellant's 'Amended Verified Plea in Abatement.'
'2. The Trial Court erred in sustaining Appellee's demurrer to the Appellant's 'Motion to Set Aside and Quash the Summons and Notice to Appear, heretofore issued on the 9th day of November, 1951, and to Quash and Set Aside the Return of Service thereon.'
It is well settled that an interlocutory appeal can only be taken pursuant to statutory authorization. Indiana Service Corp. v. Town of Flora, 1941, 218 Ind. 208, 31 N.E.2d 1015; Boros v. Mather, 1949, 119 Ind.App. 245, 85 N.E.2d 269; Ewbank's Manual of Practice (2d Ed.) § 82, pp. 156, 157; Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton, Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, § 2158, p. 37; 2 Gavit, Ind.Pl. & Pr. § 508, p. 2506. 1 There is no statutory provision in the Code concerning divorce which authorizes an appeal from any interlocutory order or judgment. Any authorization for an appeal from an interlocutory order pending an action for divorce must be authorized by § 2-3218, Burns' 1946 Replacement, or no such right of appeal exists. The assignment of errors does not question any order made for the payment of money, or the execution of any instrument of writing, the delivery or assignment of any securities, evidence of debt, documents or things in action, under the first clause of this section. Nor was there any order for the delivery of the possession of real property or sale thereof under the second clause. Nor was there any order granting or refusing to grant, or dissolving or overruling motions to dissolve any temporary injunctions under the third clause. Nor was there any order or judgment made upon any writ of habeas corpus under the fourth clause. 2
Since none of the three items in the assignment of errors specify any interlocutory order from which an appeal may be prosecuted, this appeal is dismissed.
1 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haag v. Haag
...interlocutory proceeding had, pending an action for divorce, may not be appealed unless authorized by statute. Chapman v. Chapman, 1953, 231 Ind. 556, 557, 109 N.E.2d 724. The Chapman case is, in our opinion, not in conflict with Brown v. Brown, supra, 1945, 223 Ind. 463, 61 N.E.2d 645, sin......
-
Bell v. Wabash Val. Trust Co.
...where there is no authorization warrants a dismissal. Seaney v. Ayres (1958), 238 Ind. 493, 151 N.E.2d 295, and Chapman v. Chapman (1953), 231 Ind. 556, 109 N.E.2d 724.' (Emphasis The trial court's denial of the Petition For Partial Distribution did not determine the issue as to the right o......
-
Von Behren v. Von Behren, 868S135
...457. Vinson v. Rector (1960),130 Ind.App. 606, 167 N.E.2d 601. Haag v. Haag (1959), 240 Ind. 291, 163 N.E.2d 243. Chapman v. Chapman (1953), 231 Ind. 556, 109 N.E.2d 724. We turn first to the question of whether or not the trial court rendered a final judgment. We note that, due to this app......
-
Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Vanover, 2--474A82
...where there is no authorization warrants a dismissal. Seaney v. Ayres (1958), 238 Ind. 493, 151 N.E.2d 295, and Chapman v. Chapman (1953), 231 Ind. 556, 109 N.E.2d 724.' In the case of Richards v. Crown Point Community School Corp., (1971), 256 Ind. 347, 269 N.E.2d 5, our Supreme Court in d......