Jones v. Greiger
Decision Date | 05 May 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 19293,No. 1,19293,1 |
Citation | 166 N.E.2d 868,130 Ind.App. 526 |
Parties | John J. JONES and John Kalwitz, Appellants, v. Robert W. GREIGER, Trustee of Cass Township, LaPorte County, Indiana, et al., Appellees |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Robert S. Justice, Logansport, Bell & Bell, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Howard A. DeMyer, Leon R. Kaminski, LaPorte, for appellees.
This appeal arises out of an action brought by the appellants wherein they sought an injunction against the appellees from selling bonds, taking bids for bonds, letting contracts or asking for bids by contractors for the construction of a new school building in Cass Township of LaPorte County, Indiana. The issues were properly closed and the cause was submitted to the court for trial. Prior to the trial, the appellants requested the court to make special findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellants introduced their evidence in chief in support of their petition seeking the injunction, and, at the conclusion of said evidence, the appellees moved for a finding for the appellees for the reason that the evidence introduced by the appellants was not sufficient to sustain the allegations of the appellants' complaint, which motion the trial court sustained. The trial court then made and entered his Special Findings of Fact and stated his Conclusions of Law thereon, the pertinent parts thereof read as follow:
'1. That this action is a class action brought for the individual and joint relief and benefit of the respective plaintiffs and such class as may be similary affected by the proceedings and action of defendants.
'2. That the plaintiffs in said cause are all legal voters, residents and taxpayers of Cass Township, LaPorte County, Indiana.
'3. The defendant, Robert W. Grieger, was, at all times mentioned in the complaint in this cause the duly elected, qualified and acting Trustee of Cass Township, LaPorte County, Indiana.
'4. The defendants, Edwin Menne and Byron Tilden, were, at all times mentioned in the complaint in this cause, duly elected, qualified and acting members of the Advisory Board of said township.
'All of which the court now finds this 24th day of September, 1958.
* * *
* * *
'Conclusions of Law
* * *'
Thereafter, the trial court rendered final judgment in favor of the appellees herein on its Special Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The appellants then filed a motion for a new trial which the trial court overruled and this appeal followed.
The assigned error before us is the overruling of the appellants' motion for a new trial. The appellants in the argument portion of their brief waive all of the matters set forth in their motion for a new trial, except the following three:
requested findings of fact numbered 1 to 16 and 18 and 19, inclusive.
'This being an appeal from a negative judgment, the assignment of error, 'The decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence', presents nothing for our consideration.' See Metrailer v. Bishop, Ind.App.1959, 162 N.E.2d 94, 95.
In the Metrailer case, supra, this court stated:
'The general rule of law under such circumstances is well stated in the case of Leckrone v. Lawler, 1954 (T.D.1954), 125 Ind.App. 35, 37, 118 N.E.2d 381, 382, wherein we held:
The appellants also complain that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiffs' requested findings of fact. A review of the record reflects that both the plaintiffs and the defendants below submitted their own versions of what each thought the special findings of fact should be and the conclusions of law thereon. It is apparent from the record that the trial court did not adopt or use either party's special findings of fact or conclusions of law based thereon, but made his own special findings of fact and entered his conclusions of law on those findings as he was required to do. A review of § 2-2102, Burns', 1946 repl., and our Supreme Court Rules 1-7B, 1-7C and 1-8 reveals that it was not obligatory upon the trial court to adopt the suggested special findings of fact of either of the parties.
The appellants' second contention is that the decision of the court is contrary to law, which, as pointed out in the case of Metrailer v. Bishop, supra, and Leckrone v. Lawler, supra, they may do.
At the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merryman v. Price
...them. Carpenter v. Wisniewski, Ind.App., 215 N.E.2d 882 (1966). All intendments are taken in favor of the findings. Jones v. Greiger, 130 Ind.App. 526, 166 N.E.2d 868 (1960). Where the special findings of fact are not challenged by a motion for a new trial the appellant admits for purpose o......
-
Cook v. Michigan Mut. Liability Co.
...v. Wisniewski, (139 Ind.App. 325), 215 N.E.2d 882 (1966). All intendments are taken in favor of the findings. Jones v. Greiger, 130 Ind.App. 526, 166 N.E.2d 868 (1960). 'Where the special findings of fact are not challenged by a motion for a new trial the appellant admits for purpose of app......
-
Farmers Mutuals Ins. Co. v. Wolfe, 20693
...185 N.E.2d 22; Von Cline v. Cline, Administratrix, etc. (1960), 130 Ind.App. 473, 165 N.E.2d 608; Jones et al. v. Greiger, Trustee, etc., et al. (1960), 130 Ind.App. 526, 166 N.E.2d 868; Freeport Motor Casualty Co. et al. v. Chafin (1960), 131 Ind.App. 362, 170 N.E.2d 819; Metrailer et al. ......
-
Pepka v. Branch
...court's Findings of Fact. Findings of fact must be considered as a whole and not in isolated or detached portions. Jones v. Greiger, (1960) 130 Ind.App. 526, 166 N.E.2d 868; Murrin v. Cook Bros. Dairy, Inc., (1956) 127 Ind.App. 23, 138 N.E.2d Although a few of Mary's tendered Findings of Fa......