Martinal v. Lake O' the Woods Club, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 30909,30909
• Citation: 248 Ind. 252,225 N.E.2d 183
• Parties: Frank MARTINAL, Amos Martinal and Isaline Martinal, Appellants, v. LAKE O' THE WOODS CLUB, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 183

225 N.E.2d 183

248 Ind. 252

Frank MARTINAL, Amos Martinal and Isaline Martinal, Appellants, v. LAKE O' THE WOODS CLUB, INC., Appellee.

No. 30909.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 19, 1967.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1967.

Owen W. Crumpacker, Harold Abrahamson, Hammond, for appellants, Crumpacker & Abrahamson, Hammond, of counsel.

Philip M. Cagen, Valparaiso, for appellee, Cagen & Andersen, Valparaiso, of counsel.

ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the LaPorte Circuit Court holding Frank Martinal in contempt of court for the alleged violation of a purported order of injunction for trespassing upon the portions of a lake owned by the appellee. There seems to be no important dispute on the facts in this case. The purported judgment of injunction was rendered on July 16, 1962 and reads as follows:

'This cause having heretofore been taken under advisement, for decision, the court now being fully advised in the premises, now finds for the plaintiff on paragraph No. 1 of plaintiff's complaint; and for defendant on Paragraph Two of Plaintiff's complaint. Judgment for plaintiff on paragraph one and for the defendant on paragraph two of plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff granted a permanent injunction as prayed for in paragraph one of plaintiff's complaint. Costs vs defendant on paragraph one, and for the defendant on paragraph two. Clerk ordered to notify all attorneys of this entry.'

The main contention made by the appellant is that the judgment of the trial court of July 16, 1962 granting the injunction, is too indefinite and uncertain to be effective and to constitute the basis for holding the appellant in contempt for violation thereof.

Acts 1881 (Spec.Sess.) ch. 38, § 185, p. 240, being Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. § 3--2109 provides in substance that it is not necessary to issue a writ of injunction when one is granted 'but the clerk shall issue a copy of the order of injunction duly certified by him; which shall be forthwith served by delivering same to the adverse party.'

16 I.L.E., Injunctions, § 125 (1959) states:

'The decree granting permanent injunctive relief should be as definite, clear, and precise in its terms as possible, and should be so clear and certain, and so worded, that the party enjoined may know from a reading of it what he is restrained from doing.'

The judgment of injunction issued in this case does not meet the standards set forth above. It is too vague and uncertain. To grant an injunction 'as prayed for in...