Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Bd. of Com'rs, Lawrenceburg Flood Control Dist.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 27732.,27732. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, Inc., v. BOARD OF COM'RS, LAWRENCEBURG FLOOD CONTROL DIST. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Proceeding between Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., and the Board of Commissioners, Lawrenceburg Flood Control District. From an adverse judgment, the former appeals. On motion to dismiss appeal.
Motion denied and judgment affirmed.Appeal from Dearborn Circuit Court; G. Edwin Johnston, special judge.
H. E. Fruechtenicht, of Lawrenceburg, and T. M. Galphin, Jr., of Louisville, Ky., for appellant.
Charles A. Lowe, Wm. M. Turner, and Loren L. Edwards, all of Lawrenceburg, for appellee.
Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the proceeding below was under the Flood Control Act of 1939 which in § 3, being § 48-4931, Burns' 1933 (Supp.), § 11759-2, Baldwin's Supp.1939, declares: ‘There shall be no appeal from such judgment, and after the entry of such decree the establishment of said district shall not be questioned in any action or proceeding, except as herein otherwise expressly provided.’
The General Assembly may not thus take from this court its constitutional appellate jurisdiction. Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co., 1940, 217 Ind. 93, 26 N.E.2d 399;State v. Hilgemann, 1941, 218 Ind. 572, 34 N.E.2d 129.
The only substantial question for consideration is whether or not appellant's Warehouse ‘E’ ‘will be included within or protected by the proposed flood control works.’ See § 48-4932, Burns' 1933 (Supp.), § 11759-3, Baldwin's Supp.1939. Appellant says that on the undisputed evidence this was a question of law erroneously decided. Appellee says it was a question of fact sustained by sufficient evidence.
The evidence discloses that the warehouse is rectangular in shape with north and south walls about twice as long as the east and west walls. The entrance doors are in the east wall. Appellee's proposed levee approaches the warehouse from the south and ties into the south wall some distance west of the southeast corner of the building. On the north side of the building the levee is tied into the north wall and then continues northward around other of appellant's warehouses. From the place in the south wall where the levee is attached, westward to the southwest corner, thence northward to the northwest corner and thence eastward to the place where the levee is attached to the north wall the said walls are so constructed, at very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Service Commission v. City of Indianapolis
...to any common law or equitable remedy. Ballman v. Duffecy, 1952, supra, 230 Ind. 220, 102 N.E.2d 646; Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Board of Commissioners, 1943, 220 Ind. 604, 45 N.E.2d 491; State ex rel. White v. Hilgemann, 1941, 218 Ind. 572, 34 N.E.2d 129; Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co., ......
-
Monon R. Co. v. Citizens of Sherwood Forest Addition, Marion County, 1268A218
...under the Indiana Constitution. Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co., 1940, 217 Ind. 93, 26 N.E.2d 399; Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Board of Com'rs, etc., 1943, 220 Ind. 604, 45 N.E.2d 491. However, where the statute provides the remedy of a review, and the procedure to be followed, the procedur......
-
Thompson v. Medical Licensing Bd.
...equitable remedy. (emphasis supplied) Also see Ballman v. Duffecy (1952), 230 Ind. 220, 102 N.E.2d 646; Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Board of Com'rs (1943), 220 Ind. 604, 45 N.E.2d 491; State ex rel. White v. Hilgemann, Judge (1941), 218 Ind. 572, 34 N.E.2d 129; Warren v. Indiana Telephone C......
-
Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc. v. Friedland
...to any common law or equitable remedy. Ballman v. Duffecy, 1952, supra 230 Ind. 220, 102 N.E.2d 646; Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Board of Commissioners, 1943, 220 Ind. 604, 45 N.E.2d 491; State ex rel. White v. Hilgemann, 1941, 218 Ind. 572, 34 N.E.2d 129; Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co., 1......