Leach v. Webb

• Decision Date: 27 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 9512.,9512.
• Citation: 113 N.E. 311,62 Ind.App. 693
• Parties: LEACH v. WEBB.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

62 Ind.App. 693

113 N.E. 311

LEACH

v.WEBB.

No. 9512.

Appellate Court of Indiana. Division No. 1.

June 27, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tipton County; James M. Purvis, Judge.

Final report of James H. Leach as guardian of Floyd Webb, minor, to which Floyd Webb files exceptions. From a judgment for the exceptor and from overruling of a motion for new trial, the guardian appeals. Appeal dismissed.

O. H. Mendenhall, of Atlanta, for appellant. Cleon Wade Mount, of Tipton, for appellee.

McNUTT, J.

James H. Leach, as guardian of Floyd Webb, minor, filed his final report in the court below, in which it was shown that his ward had theretofore arrived at the age of 21 years. To this report said Webb filed exceptions, to which said Leach filed a reply in general denial. Said matter was submitted to the court for trial, and upon proper request the court found the facts specially, and stated its conclusions of law thereon in favor of appellee. The court also rendered the following alleged judgment:

“It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that said guardian reform his said final report, as set out in the special finding of facts and conclusions of law thereon, and that he pay all costs, and charges accrued on account of the objections filed to said final report, and the trial thereof, taxed at $-. It is also ordered and decreed by the court that said guardian make and file his amended final report on or before November 15, 1915, and that he pay into the hands of the clerk of this court the sum of $323.20 in cash, and turn to the custody of the clerk one note calling for $32.50. All of which is finally ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court.”

Said Leach excepted to the court's conclusions of law, and also filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and excepted to. Appellant in the above form assigns numerous errors in this court, among which are that the court erred in several of its conclusions of law, and also in overruling his motion for a new trial.

We are of the opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court does not make a final disposition of the guardianship, and is not, therefore, such a final judgment from which an appeal will lie to this court, and that this appeal ought to be dismissed. In the case of Angevino, Administrator, v. Ward, Gdn., 66 Ind. 460, the guardian submitted to the court what purported to be his final report after the ward's death. The administrator of his estate filed exceptions to said guardian's report. Such exceptions were not sustained, and the court...