Seaney v. Ayres, 29470

Citation238 Ind. 493, 151 N.E.2d 295
Case DateJune 19, 1958
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 295

151 N.E.2d 295
238 Ind. 493
Owen N. SEANEY, Executor of the Last Will and Testament and
Estate of Arthur B. Ayres, Deceased, Appellant,
Matilda B. AYRES, George E. Goodwin, and Summit Gas and
Water Company, Inc., Appellees.
No. 29470.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 19, 1958.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1958.

[238 Ind. 494]

Page 296

Paul R. Benson, New Castle, Alan H. Lobley, R. Stanley Lawton, Indianapolis, of Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellant.

Robert D. Armstrong, Arthur L. Gilliom, Elbert R. Gilliom, and Richard L. Gilliom, of Gilliom, Armstrong & Gilliom, Indianapolis, for appellee.

LANDIS, Judge.

Appellant as executor of the estate of Arthur B. Ayres, deceased, filed in the Probate Court of Marion County a pleading entitled 'Petition for Judgment Against Claimants' in which appellant sought summary relief for appellees' alleged contempt of court. Appellees in such petition were charged with interfering with the administration of said estate by conspiring to reduce its assets for appellees' benefit by filing a fictitious lawsuit against Eastern Indiana Gas Company and procuring the appointment of a receiver of said gas company, which was a corporation in which the estate owned stock. In the prayer for relief of the above 'Petition for Judgment Against Claimants' appellant asked that appellees be directed to appear and show cause why judgment should not be entered against them for $21,033.16 ($10,516.58 actual damages and $10,516.58 punitive damages), plus reasonable fees for appellant and his attorneys.

The court below issued the rule to show cause against appellants, reciting the same showed prima facie liability to said estate by appellees and directing them to show cause why they should not pay appellant $21,033.16[238 Ind. 495] and attorneys' fees. Thereafter, the court on appellees' motion, set aside and vacated the order to show cause and ordered appellant's petition transferred to the civil docket of the probate court and docketed separately as a complaint in a civil cause. Appellant sought to set aside and vacate this last order of the court and to file an amended petition. The court refused to set aside its last order and to allow appellant to file an amended petition.

Appellant has appealed from such ruling to this court.

Appellee has filed motion to dismiss the appeal taken by appellant, contending the ruling of the court below (1) was not an interlocutory order from which an appeal could be taken and (2) was not an appealable final judgment.

Appellant has conceded that the ruling of the court below was not an interlocutory order from which an appeal can be taken, 1 and we shall not, therefore, belabor this opinion with a discussion of that point.

As to whether the ruling is an appealable final judgment, appellees contend the judgment below must finally dispose of and adjudicate appellant's cause of action or at least a distinct or definite branch thereof (citing: Enmeier v. Blaize, 1932, 203 Ind. 303, 179 N.E. 783, and Greathouse v. McKinney, 1942, 220 Ind. 462, 44 N.E.2d 344), which appellees state it does not do. Appellant contends the net effect of the ruling was to terminate between the parties all the issues of the case made out by the petition seeking relief in civil contempt.

[238 Ind. 496] Appellant cites Guthrie v. Blakely, 1955,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Haag v. Haag, 29884
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 22 Diciembre 1959
    ...State, 1957, 237 Ind. 308 311, 145 N.E.2d 429; Pokraka v. Lummus Co., 1952, 230 Ind. 523, 528, 104 N.E.2d 669; Seaney v. Ayres, Ind.1958, 151 N.E.2d 295, 297; F.W. & H.Ind.Tr. & App.Pract., § 2152, p. 18; 17 Ind.Law Encyc., Judgment § 2, p. 136, Second: There is no question of general suppo......
  • Board of Com'rs of Cass County v. Nevitt, 4-782A221
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 9 Mayo 1983
    ...(1972) 259 Ind. 266, 269, 286 N.E.2d 657, 659, reserving "no further question for future determination." Id.; Seaney v. Ayres, (1958) 238 Ind. 493, 497, 151 N.E.2d 295, 297. These cases make it clear that a "judgment" is generally a final order that is appealable without reference to any pr......
  • Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Bd., 2--174A31
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Abril 1975
    ...Ind., 286 N.E.2d 657, 659; State ex rel. Neal v. Hamilton Circuit Court (1967), 248 Ind. 130, 134, 224 N.E.2d 55; Seaney v. Ayres (1958), 238 Ind. 493, 151 N.E.2d 295, 296, 297; Schenkel et al v. Citizens State Bank (1967), 140 Ind.App. 558, 559, 560, 224 N.E.2d 319; Vinson v. Rector (1960)......
  • Thompson v. Thompson, s. 271S41
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Agosto 1972
    ...(1971), Ind., 269 N.E.2d 5. A final judgment reserves no further question or direction for future determination. Seaney v. Ayres (1958), 238 Ind. 493, 151 N.E.2d 95. The purpose of the final judgment rule is to prevent delay in the trial of lawsuits which would result from limitless interme......
  • 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