Crafton v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 21 April 1893 |
| Citation | 33 N.E. 1032,134 Ind. 320 |
| Parties | CRAFTON et al. v. MITCHELL et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Monroe county; R. W. Miers, Judge.
Action by Samuel M. Mitchell and others against John B. Crafton and others to recover possession of land. Plaintiffs took a nonsuit. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.
H. C. Duncan and I. C. Bateman, for appellants. Louden & Rogers, for appellees.
The record presents an assignment of four alleged errors, the fourth of which is that “the court erred in sustaining the appellees' motion to dismiss the cause of action.” We will notice no other assignment. The bill of exceptions discloses that this cause, and another of a similar nature, but between different parties, were pending for trial. It was agreed that both causes should be tried by the court, and that a special finding should be made in each cause upon the evidence introduced in the cause as tried together. In such other cause the court prepared and announced its special finding of facts, and conclusions of law therefrom, and, after reading such finding, stated that the finding in this cause had not been written, but that it would be just such a finding as that made, excepting in the names of the parties and the description of the lands. At a subsequent sitting of the court, and before further steps were taken in this cause, the plaintiffs (appellees here) moved to dismiss their action; and, over the objection of the appellants, the court sustained said motion, and dismissed said action. Appellants' counsel concede the question to depend upon the ruling as to whether the remark of the court as to what the special finding in this case would be, when written, was the announcement of the court's decision of the cause. It has often been decided that after the trial court announces its decision the action cannot be dismissed, to defeat a judgment. But we do not believe that a special finding can be announced in advance of its preparation. It does not consist of any oral statement of the judge. Rev. St. 1881, § 551. This question was decided by this court against the contention of the appellantshere in the case of Mitchell v. Friedley, 126 Ind. 545, 26 N. E. Rep. 391. There the court announced a general finding where a special finding had been requested. The general finding, therefore, was recalled. Thereupon the cross complainant moved to dismiss his cross complaint, and the motion was denied. This was held to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halstead v. Sigler
...after they have been reduced to writing which cuts off the right of dismissal. Section 336, Burns' Ann. St. 1901; Crafton v. Mitchell, 134 Ind. 320, 33 N. E. 1032. From the record it appears that Clara Coen, as administratrix, was permitted by the court to dismiss her cause of action before......
-
Halstead v. Sigler
... ... finding after it has been reduced to writing which cuts off ... the right of dismissal. § 336 Burns 1901, § 333 R ... S. 1881; Crafton v. Mitchell (1893), 134 ... Ind. 320, 33 N.E. 1032. From the record it appears that Clara ... Coen, as administratrix, was permitted by the court ... ...
-
Van Sant v. Wentworth
... ... 594] statute, the scope of ... which we proceed to ascertain in the light of the decided ... In ... Crafton v. Mitchell (1893), 134 Ind. 320, ... 33 N.E. 1032, two causes were identical, except as to parties ... and lands involved, and were tried ... ...
-
Van Sant v. Wentworth
...a consideration of the statute, the scope of which we proceed to ascertain in the light of the decided cases. In Crafton et al. v. Mitchell et al., 134 Ind. 320, 33 N. E. 1032, two causes were identical, except as to parties and lands involved, and were tried together. The court having read......