Home Electric Light And Power Co. v. The Globe Tissue Paper Co.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1896
• Docket Number: 17,797
• Parties: Home Electric Light and Power Company v. The Globe Tissue Paper Company
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

44 N.E. 191

145 Ind. 174

Home Electric Light and Power Company v. The Globe Tissue Paper Company

No. 17,797

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 27, 1896

From the Elkhart Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

Dodge & Hubbell, and Vanfleet & Vanfleet, for appellant.

Baker & Miller, Osborn & Zook and Chamberlain & Turner for appellee.

OPINION

Hackney, J.

In a suit by appellee against the appellant, the latter was restrained from certain uses of the water-power, supplied to both companies by the St. Joseph Hydraulic Company.

While that suit was pending, and within a few days after the order so restraining the appellant, the appellee filed certain affidavits, in which the trial court was advised that the appellant had been guilty of contempt in violating said order. The appellant was permitted to file certain counter-affidavits, and the court made the following entry: "This matter having been submitted to the court upon the affidavits heretofore filed herein, by the respective parties, and the court being well advised in the premises, now finds the defendant, the Home Electric Light and Power Company, guilty of contempt of court, as charged and the court now assesses a fine of one hundred ($ 100.00) dollars against the defendant, reserving the right to remit all or any part of said fine at any time before the final disposition of this cause; to all of which defendant, at the time, by counsel, duly excepts. And the defendant now tenders its bill of exceptions number one." From this entry said Home Electric Light and Power Company has brought the record in said cause to this court, as upon appeal from a final judgment. The appellee challenges said entry as not constituting a final judgment from which an appeal lies, and the appellant attempts no answer to this proposition.

"A final judgment is one which determines the rights of the parties in the suit, or a distinct and definite branch of it, and reserves no further question or direction for future determination." 12 Am. and Eng. Ency of Law, p. 63, and cases cited; 1 Black. Judg., sections 21, 31, 46; Thomas, Admr., v. Chicago, etc., R. W. Co., 139 Ind. 462, 39 N.E. 44; Needham v. Gillaspy, 49 Ind. 245.

Here there is no order for the recovery of any sum, and no adjudication as to costs, nor is it apparent that the court intended the entry as anything further than a finding, since the privilege "to remit all or any part" of the fine is reserved. Treating the...