Haley v. Williams, 18537
| Decision Date | 08 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 18537,18537 |
| Citation | 123 N.E.2d 921,125 Ind.App. 377 |
| Parties | Jesse HALEY, Appellant, v. Dolphus WILLIAMS, as Trustee of Jefferson Township, in Washington County, Indiana, Lillie Medlock, Thomas Medlock, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mead & Mead, Salem, for appellant.
Allen & Thompson, James D. Allen and William L. Thompson, Salem, for appellees.
The appellant brought this action against the appellees seeking to enjoin them from proceeding further in the construction of a partition fence, which fence the Township Trustee had already begun to erect on and along a portion of the partition line between the lands of the appellant Jesse Haley and the lands of the appellee Lillie Medlock, and asking for a restraining order without notice. The issues were formed on the appellant's complaint and the answer of the appellee Dolphus Williams, Trustee, and the answer of the appellees Medlock et al. Each denied the allegations contained in the appellant's complaint. However, at a later date the appellee Medlock, et al., filed a cross-complaint for declaratory judgment, to which the appellant addressed an answer in denial.
The appellant alleged in his complaint that he owned 54 acres of land in the SW 1/4 of S. 27, T. 3 N., R. 3 E. in Washington County, Indiana, and the appellee Lillie Medlock owned 120 acres in the south half of said section which lay to the east and south of appellant's land; that the appellees were trying to get appellant to build a portion of the partition fence on the lines between said lands different from what the statute required him to build and that the trustee was already constructing a portion of the fence for him contrary to the statute.
Trial was to the court which found against appellant and in favor of appellee Lillie Medlock on her cross-complaint that there existed prior to 1949 an agreement between the parties and their predecessors by which each party built, repaired and maintained his left hand portion of the fence in question, being different from the statutory provision. That the appellee, Lillie Medlock, had built her portion of the fence and that appellant should be ordered to build, repair and maintain his left hand part likewise. 'Lillie Medlock is obligated and required to build, maintain and repair that portion of the partition fence between said defendant and the plaintiff herein beginning at the south on the road and running thence generally north a distance of 78 rods, more or less, to the point where said partition fence turns and runs due east and west, that the plaintiff build, maintain and repair that portion of said partition fence which runs due east and west 66 rods, more or less, to a point where said partition fence turns and runs due north and south, that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. Deckelbaum, 19210
...is that a decision of the trial court will not be interfered with when it is supported by any evidence.' See also Haley v. Williams (1955), 125 Ind.App. 377, 123 N.E.2d 921. The case of Abrams v. Silver (1936), 102 Ind.App. 97, 1 N.E.2d 268, presents a strong parallel to the instant case. M......
-
Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith
...will not be regarded by this court in that it is settled law that this court does not weigh evidence. Haley v. Williams, Trustee, etc. et al., 1954, 125 Ind.App. 377, 123 N.E.2d 921; First Bank & Trust Co., etc., Extr. v. Tellson, 1954, 124 Ind.App. 478, 118 N.E.2d 496; Gray v. Hawke Motor ......
-
Tilton v. Southwest School Corp., 871A152
...court to affirm. Central Ind. Ry. Co. v. Mikesell (1966), 139 Ind.App. 478, 221 N.E.2d 192, 201; Haley v. Williams, Trustee etc., et al. (1955), 125 Ind.App. 377, 380, 381, 123 N.E.2d 921, 922.' In determining whether the action of the appellees was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable it......
-
Lee v. Dickerson
...evidence. First Bank & Tr. Co. etc., Extr. v. Tellson, 1954, 124 Ind.App. 478, 118 N.E.2d 496; Haley v. Williams, Trustee, etc., et al., 1955, 125 Ind.App. 377, 123 N.E.2d 921; Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton's Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, ch. 56, § 2786, p. 366. Thus, in so far as......