McIntosh v. Monroe, No. 28905

Docket NºNo. 28905
Citation111 N.E.2d 658, 232 Ind. 60
Case DateApril 15, 1953
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 658

111 N.E.2d 658
232 Ind. 60
McINTOSH
v.
MONROE et al.
No. 28905.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 15, 1953.

[232 Ind. 61]

Page 659

Ramon S. Perry and Dalton C. McAlister, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Winslow Van Horne, Auburn, for appellee.

GILKISON, Judge.

Appellees filed their complaint in the DeKalb Circuit Court to enjoin appellant from engaging in the sale of alcoholic beverages at his place of business in St. Joe, Indiana. The cause was sent to the Steuben Circuit Court on change of venue, where it was tried by the court and thereafter, on January 6, 1951, the court rendered its finding and judgment as follows:

'The court how finds for the plaintiffs on their complaint and against the defendant and that the defendant is now engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages in premises in St. Joe, Indiana, located within 200 feet of the St. Marks Lutheran Church, by virtue of a certain permit issued by the Indiana Alcoholic Beverages Commission on or about February 15, 1950; and further, that the sale of alcoholic beverages in said premises is in violation of the law; and that the allegations of plaintiffs' complaint are true and proven.

'It is now therefore considered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the defendant be and he is hereby permanently enjoined from engaging in the sale of alcoholic beverages in the premises in St. Joe, Indiana, now occupied by him for said purpose by virtue of a permit issued by the Indiana Alcoholic Beverages Commission.

'It is further adjudged and decreed that the defendant shall pay the costs of this action made and taxed at $_____.'

The record further discloses data as follows:

On February 3, 1951 the defendant filed his motion for new trial upon which motion oral argument was heard by the Court on the 31st day of March, 1951.

On the 3rd day of April, 1951 the motion for new trial was overruled.

On the 13th day of Nevember, 1951 a petition to enforce the injunction was filed in the Court with supporting affidavit upon which petition the Court [232 Ind. 62] issued a rule to show cause against the defendant, Charles McIntosh, on the 17th day of November, 1951 at 10:00 in the forenoon at the Court House at Angola, Indiana.

On the 13th day of November, 1951 the respondent, Charles McIntosh, filed answer to discharge the rule and evidence was partly heard on the petition to enforce the injunction and the cause was continued for further evidence and findings and judgment until November 21,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Clouser v. Mock, No. 29594
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 26 Enero 1959
    ...the court to change its judgments under the common law. It must seek such power, if any, in the statutes. McIntosh v. Monroe et al., 1953, 232 Ind. 60, 63, 111 N.E.2d 658; Wagner v. McFadden, 1941, 218 Ind. 400, 403, 31 N.E.2d 628; Scheiring v. Baker, 1931, 202 Ind. 678, 682, 177 N.E. 866; ......
  • Fairwood Bluffs Conservancy Dist. v. Imel, No. 1267A117
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 3 Marzo 1970
    ...was no longer open to any amendment or correction which substantially affected or varied the judgment. McIntosh v. Monroe et al. (1953), 232 Ind. 60, 111 N.E.2d 658; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., Trustee (1931), 202 Ind. 641, 177 N.E. 454. Therefore, the fact that the court, on its own moti......
  • Bryant v. Owens, No. 28906
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 28 Abril 1953
    ...166, 174, 175, 152 N.W. 1002, 1004. See also 34 C.J. 752, § 1162; 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 598, p. 20. 3 In McIntosh v. Monroe, Ind., 111 N.E.2d 658, we held that even by the consent of the parties after the time for appeal had expired from an original judgment, the court was without jurisdi......
  • Cowart v. White, No. 29S02-9906-CV-355
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 22 Junio 1999
    ...modification of the 1996 decree. Cowart is correct that finality is an important value of our legal system. See McIntosh v. Monroe, 232 Ind. 60, 111 N.E.2d 658 (1953). However, in significant part, the contempt consisted of activities that in one way or another frustrated the court's direct......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Clouser v. Mock, No. 29594
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 26 Enero 1959
    ...the court to change its judgments under the common law. It must seek such power, if any, in the statutes. McIntosh v. Monroe et al., 1953, 232 Ind. 60, 63, 111 N.E.2d 658; Wagner v. McFadden, 1941, 218 Ind. 400, 403, 31 N.E.2d 628; Scheiring v. Baker, 1931, 202 Ind. 678, 682, 177 N.E. 866; ......
  • Fairwood Bluffs Conservancy Dist. v. Imel, No. 1267A117
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 3 Marzo 1970
    ...was no longer open to any amendment or correction which substantially affected or varied the judgment. McIntosh v. Monroe et al. (1953), 232 Ind. 60, 111 N.E.2d 658; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., Trustee (1931), 202 Ind. 641, 177 N.E. 454. Therefore, the fact that the court, on its own moti......
  • Bryant v. Owens, No. 28906
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 28 Abril 1953
    ...166, 174, 175, 152 N.W. 1002, 1004. See also 34 C.J. 752, § 1162; 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 598, p. 20. 3 In McIntosh v. Monroe, Ind., 111 N.E.2d 658, we held that even by the consent of the parties after the time for appeal had expired from an original judgment, the court was without jurisdi......
  • Cowart v. White, No. 29S02-9906-CV-355
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 22 Junio 1999
    ...modification of the 1996 decree. Cowart is correct that finality is an important value of our legal system. See McIntosh v. Monroe, 232 Ind. 60, 111 N.E.2d 658 (1953). However, in significant part, the contempt consisted of activities that in one way or another frustrated the court's direct......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT