Guthrie v. Blakely
Decision Date | 04 April 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 29176,29176 |
Citation | 125 N.E.2d 437,234 Ind. 167 |
Parties | Florence M. GUTHRIE, Appellant, v. Catherine Delores BLAKELY et al., Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Frederick K. Baer, South Bend, Thomas Hart Fisher, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Lenn J. Oare, Seebirt, Oare & Deahl, South Bend, for appellees.
This action, from the facts alleged and the relief sought, must be classified as a suit to quiet title. However, each of the several paragraphs of the unverified complaint prayed that the 'defendants be temporarily and permanently restrained and enjoined * * * from asserting or claiming any right, title or interest in or to said real estate.'
To these paragraphs of complaint appellee filed numerous paragraphs of answer. To these paragraphs of answer appellant filed commensurate paragraphs of reply. To appellant's reply appellees filed a demurrer--which was sustained by the court. Appellant refused to plead further, whereupon the court 'Ordered and Adjudged that the plaintiff (appellant) take nothing of the said Catherine Delores Blakely and Lucius M. Wagner by reason of her * * * complaint * * * and that the defendants * * * recover * * * their costs * * *'.
Did these facts present an issue which is appealable to this court? Was the 'take nothing' judgment an interlocutory order refusing to grant a temporary injunction? Only such orders are made appealable to this court by § 4-214, Burns' 1946 Repl. and § 2-3218, Burns' 1946 Repl.
At the outset we are confronted by the fact that no separate issue as to a temporary injunction was ever presented to the trial court and, further, that the decree did more than deny mere temporary injunction. Rather, the pleadings placed in issue the merits of appellant's case in chief. The 'take nothing' judgment denied appellant any right to any relief whatsoever. Therefore, if, under the facts, we were to concede that an issue to a temporary injunction was before the court, we would certainly not entertain an appeal upon that issue after it had been finally determined by the court that appellant was not entitled to a permanent injunction with respect to the same subject-matter and had also decreed that appellant had no interest in the subject-matter of the action as against appellees. Flanagan, Wiltrout & Hamilton's Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, ch. 41, § 2159, p. 39; See also, Indiana Dept. of Revenue Inheritance Tax Div. v. Estate of Callaway, 1953, 232 Ind. 1, 110 N.E.2d 903; Wall v. City of Muncie, 1929, 201 Ind. 170, 166 N.E. 659.
This was a final adjudication upon the issue of injunctive relief or any other relief as between all parties to this appeal. Therefore, if the judgment is an appealable judgment the appeal must be taken to the Appellate Court under § 4-217, Burns' 1946 Repl., Acts 1901, ch. 247, § 13, p. 565.
Appellee contends that the judgment is not a final appealable judgment and therefore that the appeal should be dismissed. Our attention has been called to numerous early cases which have held that a judgment is not appealable until it disposes of all issues as to all parties in the case. However, all recent cases, in both this court and the Appellate Court, have uniformly held that a judgment may be final and appealable even if it does not dispose of all the issues as to all the parties in the trial court, provided it disposes of 'a distinct and definite branch' of litigation. In the case of Bozovichar v. State, 1952, 230 Ind. 358, 363, 103 N.E.2d 680, 682, this court stated the rule as follows:
Also, in Pokraka v. Lummus Co., 1952, 230 Ind. 523, 528, 104 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stanray Corp. v. Horizon Const., Inc.
...a 'final judgment'. That reliance is premised upon the following statement from Richards quoting from Guthrie v. Blakely (1955), 234 Ind. 167, 170, 125 n.E.2d 437, 438: "* * * a judgment may be final and appearable even if it does not dispose of all the issues as to all the parties in the t......
-
Custody of Helwig, In re
...a distinct and definite branch of it, and reserves no further question or direction for future determination. Guthrie v. Blakely, (1955) 234 Ind. 167, 170, 125 N.E.2d 437, 438; Pokraka v. Lummus Co., (1952) 230 Ind. 523, 528, 104 N.E.2d 669, 671; Gulf Oil Corp. v. McManus, (1977) 173 Ind.Ap......
-
Ind. Newspapers, Inc. v. Miller
...as to all the parties, so long as it disposed of "a distinct and definite branch of the litigation[.]" See, e.g., Guthrie v. Blakely (1955), 234 Ind. 167, 125 N.E.2d 437. In multiparty litigation, this meant that an order finally determining all of the issues and claims raised by one of the......
-
Ind. Newspapers, Inc. v. Miller, CAUSE NO. 49A02-1211-PL-898
...as to all the parties, so long as it disposed of "a distinct and definite branch of the litigation[.]" See, e.g., Guthrie v. Blakely (1955), 234 Ind. 167, 125 N.E.2d 437. In multiparty litigation, this meant that an order finally determining all of the issues and claims raised by one of the......