McIntosh v. Monroe
| Decision Date | 15 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 28905,28905 |
| Citation | 111 N.E.2d 658,232 Ind. 60 |
| Parties | McINTOSH v. MONROE et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ramon S. Perry and Dalton C. McAlister, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Winslow Van Horne, Auburn, for appellee.
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 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, 1951.
On the 21st day of November, 1951 the matter was continued until November 28 1951 at 10:00 a. m. for the conclusion of the evidence, findings and judgment.
On November 28, 1951 evidence was concluded and the Court found the defendant guilty of indirect contempt by reason of his failure to obey an order of injunction issued by the Court on January 6, 1951 and adjudged that the petitioner recover of the defendant the sum of $125 as compensatory damages and that the defendant should deliver to the Court the permit issued by the Alcoholic Beverages Commission to be held by the Court pending the disposition of an appeal if any be taken. Costs were adjudged against the defendant.
On the 31st day of December, 1951 the defendant, by counsel made what seems to have been an oral motion to set aside the entry of the 3rd day of April, 1951 overruling defendant's motion for a new trial.
On the 2nd day of January, 1952 by agreement of the parties by counsel, the Court set aside the entry of April 3, 1951 overruling the defendant's motion for new trial and reinstated the judgment theretofore rendered on plaintiff's complaint and on the latter date the Court overruled the motion for new trial again and attempted to grant the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clouser v. Mock
...of 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. 86......
-
Cowart v. White
...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......
-
Welling v. Welling
...v. Davis (1895), 141 Ind. 367, 40 N.E. 803. A judgment becomes final when the motion for new trial is overruled. See, McIntosh v. Monroe (1953), 232 Ind. 60, 111 N.E.2d 658. Therefore, where the Boone Circuit Court denied appellee's motion for new trial, the judgment became final and the or......
-
Chapin v. Hulse
...of this state have found to be void judgments or orders rendered by courts that had subject matter jurisdiction. In McIntosh v. Monroe (1953), 232 Ind. 60, 111 N.E.2d 658, the trial court, with the agreement of the parties, set aside an order overruling the defendant's motion for a new tria......