Grider v. Scharf, No. 28285.

Docket NºNo. 28285.
Citation225 Ind. 251, 73 N.E.2d 75
Case DateMay 26, 1947
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

225 Ind. 251
73 N.E.2d 75

GRIDER et al.
v.
SCHARF.

No. 28285.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 26, 1947.


Action by Helen Barr Scharf against Frank Grider and others to recover compensatory and punitive damages for injuries sustained when defendants ejected plaintiff from a public conveyance while attempting to enforce a ‘union dues inspection’. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which transferred the cause, 71 N.E.2d 245, pursuant to Burns' Ann.St. § 4-215, subd. 1.

Affirmed.

GILKISON, C. J., and EMMERT, J., dissenting.

[73 N.E.2d 76]

Appeal from Newton Circuit Court; Newell A. Lamb, Judge.
Albert H. Gavit and Richard S. Kaplan, both of Gary, and George F. Sammons, of Kentland, for appellant.

Jay E. Darlington, of Hammond, for appellee.


YOUNG, Judge.

It appears, without contradiction from the record in this case, that prior to the infliction of the injuries complained of, Local Union 1066 of United Steel Workers of America had ordered a ‘dues inspection’ of its members employed in the Carnegie Illinois Steel Mill at Gary. A dues inspection, as it was conducted in this case, involves the stopping of employes on their way to work for the purpose of determining whether they are members of the union, and, if so, whether their dues have been paid. Upon the morning appellee was injured, there was evidence that four or five hundred union members congregated on a public highway near the entrance of the steel mill and stopped public buses and private autos containing employes going to work, and those who did not have cards showing union dues paid were turned back. The precedure adopted was for union representatives to require buses carrying employes to the steel mill entrance to stop and to require all passengers to disembark and then permit those thought to be qualified to go ahead and turn back those not thought to be qualified.

Appellee, an employee, was not a union member. Her testimony and that of her witnesses was to the effect that she went to work on the morning in question in a public conveyance operated by the Gary street railway system and when the bus, in which she was riding, approached the entrance to the steel mill it was stopped. All passengers were ordered to get out by union representatives directing the ‘dues inspection.’ Mrs. Scharf refused to obey, whereupon the appellant, Grider, instructed two co-appellants, who were his assistants, to ‘get that old sow out of there.’ They grabbed her and by violence moved her to the exit. At the steps appellant Grider grabbed her by the leg, about eight inches above the knee, and pulled her off the bus. She filed suit against the Local Union and the National Union and a number of others, including Grider, and those who had actually evicted her from the bus, for compensatory damages and also punitive damages. It was stipulated that appellant, Frank Grider, was in charge of the picketing and pickets at the time and place described in plaintiff's complaint, and, in directing such picketing and pickets, was acting as the duly authorized agent and representative of Local Union No. 1066 of United Steel Workers of America and United Steel Workers of America, and was acting within the scope of his authority and in the regular course of his employment as such agent and representative.

There was trial and verdict for the plaintiff, for both compensatory and punitive damages, and immediately upon return of such verdict counsel for appellants made an oral motion in arrest of judgment, which

[73 N.E.2d 77]

motion was overruled. Later a motion to withdraw the motion in arrest of judgment and a motion for a new trial were filed and each was overruled. Appeal was taken to the Indiana Appellate Court. The Appellate Court wrote an opinion in which it stated that the substantial questions in the case arise under appellants' motion for a new trial, but that under ruling precedents in this state questions raised by the motion for a new trial could not be considered because a motion in arrest of judgment forecloses the right to file a motion for a new trial. The Appellate Court expressed the opinion that the cases establishing the rule that a motion in arrest of judgment precludes the later filing of a motion for a new trial, except for causes discovered afterward, should be overruled, and they certified the case to us pursuant to § 4-215, First, Burns' 1946 Replacement.

We are, therefore, confronted with the propriety of overruling a long line of cases which prevailed when the case before us was tried, thereby retroactively changing a well established rule of practice and procedure, in order that appellees may present alleged error, which will not be available to them unless such cases are overruled and such rule is changed.

Continuously, and without exception, in a long line of cases this court since 1850, and the Appellate Court since its establishment, have recognized motions in arrest of judgment as a part of our practice and have held that the filing of a motion in arrest cuts off the right to file a motion for a new trial and that a motion for a new trial filed after a motion in arrest presents nothing for consideration. Mason v. Palmerton, 1850, 2 Ind. 117, 120;Rogers v. Maxwell, 1853, 4 Ind. 243, 245;Bepley v. State, 1853, 4 Ind. 264, 265,58 Am.Dec. 628;Sherry v. Ewell, 1853, 4 Ind. 652;Smith v. Porter, 1854, 5 Ind. 429;Hord v. Noblesville, 1854, 6 Ind. 55;Van Pelt v. Corwine, 1855, 6 Ind. 363, 364;McKinney v. Springer, 1855, 6 Ind. 453, 454;Doe v. Clark, 1855, 6 Ind. 466, 467;Marion, etc., R. Co. v. Lomax, 1856, 7 Ind. 406;Weathered v. Bray, 1856, 7 Ind. 706;Anthony v. Lewis, 1856, 8 Ind. 339;Bates v. Reiskenhianzer, 1857, 9 Ind. 178;Shrewsbury v. Smith, 1859, 12 Ind. 317;Daily v. Nuttman, 1860, 14 Ind. 339, 340;Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Case, 1889, 122 Ind. 310, 316, 23 N.E. 797;Eckert v. Binkley, 1893, 134 Ind. 614, 616, 33 N.E. 619,34 N.E. 441;Yazel v. State, 1908, 170 Ind. 535, 539, 84 N.E. 972;Kelley v. Bell, 1909, 172 Ind. 590, 595, 88 N.E. 58;Turner v. State, 1910, 175 Ind. 1, 3, 93 N.E. 225; Conant v. First National Bank, 1917, 186 Ind. 569, 572, 117 N.E. 607;Phillips v. Gammon, 1919, 188 Ind. 497, 499, 124 N.E. 699;Anderson v. State, 1924, 195 Ind. 329, 333, 145 N.E. 311;Kirschbaum v. State, 1925, 196 Ind. 512, 519, 149 N.E. 77;School City of Noblesville v. Heinzman, 1895, 13 Ind.App. 195, 197, 41 N.E. 464;Wheeler v. Rohrer, 1899, 21 Ind.App. 477, 483, 52 N.E. 780;Willard v. Albertson, 1899, 23 Ind.App. 166, 167, 53 N.E. 1078,54 N.E....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Baptist Church in New Providence v. Stalker, No. 19469
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 8, 1961
    ...of the judgment and ruling of the trial court. City of Ft. Wayne v. Bishop, 1950, 228 Ind. 304, 92 N.E.2d 544; Grider v. Scharf, 1947, 225 Ind. 251, 73 N.E.2d 75, 72 N.E.2d 749; Barksdale v. State, 1925, 196 Ind. 392, 394, 147 N.E. 765; Trick v. Eckhouse, 1924, 82 Ind.App. 196, 200, 145 N.E......
  • Estate of Keeler, In re, No. 3-684A164
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 22, 1985
    ...the facts and circumstances before it. This being the case, an order changing the docket sheet entry was proper. Grider v. Scharf (1947), 225 Ind. 251, 73 N.E.2d 75, 80 (the purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry is to make the record speak the Claim Against the Estate Judy next argues that the t......
  • Gaddis v. Barnes, No. 18337
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 12, 1953
    ...is a dilatory plea. It is regarded with disfavor in the Page 884 law as having the effect of excluding the truth. Grider v. Scharf, 1947, 225 Ind. 251, 73 N.E.2d 75, 73 N.E.2d 749; Dodgem Corp. v. D. D. Murphy Shows, Inc., 1933, 96 Ind.App. 325, 183 N.E. 699, 185 N.E. 169. As it was stated ......
  • American Employers' Ins. Co. v. Cornell, No. 17551.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 26, 1947
    ...recovery, which is not the situation in the case at bar. [7] The above instruction complained of was entirely proper, and the only proper [73 N.E.2d 75]verdict if the jury found for the plaintiff, was to assess the amount of recovery at the amount of the judgments sued upon in plaintiff's c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Baptist Church in New Providence v. Stalker, No. 19469
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 8, 1961
    ...of the judgment and ruling of the trial court. City of Ft. Wayne v. Bishop, 1950, 228 Ind. 304, 92 N.E.2d 544; Grider v. Scharf, 1947, 225 Ind. 251, 73 N.E.2d 75, 72 N.E.2d 749; Barksdale v. State, 1925, 196 Ind. 392, 394, 147 N.E. 765; Trick v. Eckhouse, 1924, 82 Ind.App. 196, 200, 145 N.E......
  • Estate of Keeler, In re, No. 3-684A164
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 22, 1985
    ...the facts and circumstances before it. This being the case, an order changing the docket sheet entry was proper. Grider v. Scharf (1947), 225 Ind. 251, 73 N.E.2d 75, 80 (the purpose of a nunc pro tunc entry is to make the record speak the Claim Against the Estate Judy next argues that the t......
  • Gaddis v. Barnes, No. 18337
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 12, 1953
    ...is a dilatory plea. It is regarded with disfavor in the Page 884 law as having the effect of excluding the truth. Grider v. Scharf, 1947, 225 Ind. 251, 73 N.E.2d 75, 73 N.E.2d 749; Dodgem Corp. v. D. D. Murphy Shows, Inc., 1933, 96 Ind.App. 325, 183 N.E. 699, 185 N.E. 169. As it was stated ......
  • American Employers' Ins. Co. v. Cornell, No. 17551.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 26, 1947
    ...recovery, which is not the situation in the case at bar. [7] The above instruction complained of was entirely proper, and the only proper [73 N.E.2d 75]verdict if the jury found for the plaintiff, was to assess the amount of recovery at the amount of the judgments sued upon in plaintiff's c......
  • 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