Scott v. Pandell, 18530
| Decision Date | 30 March 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18530,18530 |
| Parties | SCOTT v. PANDELL et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Charles Mendenhall, Indianapolis, Neal & Neal, Noblesville, for appellant.
Christian & Waltz, Noblesville, Herbert M. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellees.
Appellees are the owners of certain residential property on North Capitol Avenue in the City of Indianapolis. Appellant owns the property immediately south of appellees' property on said street.
Appellees brought this action for an injunction to prevent appellant from interfering with the erection of a division fence between these properties. The material allegations of the complaint may be summarized as follows:
For many years a fence has existed between the property of the parties along a division line established by the surveyor of Marion County on October 30, 1937; that on November 28, 1939, in the case of Rose E. Scott v. Kate L. Landes in the Marion Superior Court, title was quieted in said Kate L. Landes against Rose E. Scott in the real estate described as owned by appellees with the southern division boundary as established by said survey; that appellees purchased the property from said Kate L. Landes; that the division fence on said line is in a state of disrepair; that appellees purchased fencing materials and entered into a contract to erect a new fence upon said division line; that in February, 1953, workmen began to erect a new fence thereon and appellant wrongfully, without leave or consent, forcibly pulled up posts and forcibly interfered with and prevented said workmen from continuing with the erection of said fence; that appellant is wrongfully threatening to prevent the erection of said fence and will, if not restrained and enjoined, continue to interfere with the erection of said fence to the irreparable injury and great damage of appellees; that said acts of appellant are a continuing injury and interference with the rights of appellees and unless appellant is restrained from carrying out such threats appellees will suffer substantial injury for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Concluded with prayer for permanent injunction and damages of $1,000.
To this complaint appellant filed answer of admission and denial under the rules. She also filed cross-complaint, the material allegations of which may be summarized as follows: Appellees are threatening to trespass on her property by the erection of a fence, if not restrained and enjoined from doing so; that an emergency exists for the immediate issuance of a restraining order against appellees and, upon hearing, a permanent injunction.
Appellees filed answer of admission and denial under the rules to the cross-complaint. Trial to the court resulted in judgment in favor of appellees on their complaint and against appellant on her cross-complaint. Appellant was permanently enjoined from interfering with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willsey v. Hartman, 1069A171
...not comply with the requirements of Rule 2--17(e). In support of his position, appellee cites the cases of Scott v. Pandell (et al.) (1954), 124 Ind.App. 474, 476, 118 N.E.2d 372; Kruzick v. Kruzick (et al.) (1954), 124 Ind.App. 365, 368, 118 N.E.2d 376, in which cases the Appellate Court c......
-
Fort Wayne Transit, Inc. v. Shomo
...not made in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. Gernhart v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 470, 120 N.E.2d 265; Scott v. Pandell, 1954, 124 Ind.App. 474, 118 N.E.2d 372; Tompkins v. Smith, 1952, 122 Ind.App. 502, 106 N.E.2d No specific objection was made to the second question and ther......
-
Harrell v. Harrell, 18827
...as were required under the older court rule, are included in the appellant's brief, they will not be considered. Scott v. Pandell 1954, 124 Ind.App. 474, 118 N.E.2d 372; Kruzick v. Kruzick, 1954, 124 Ind.App. 365, 118 N.E.2d Rule 2-17(e) of the Supreme Court has been in force and effect for......
- Altmeyer v. Norris, 18456