Smith v. Smith, 18602

Decision Date21 October 1955
Docket NumberNo. 18602,18602
Citation129 N.E.2d 374,125 Ind.App. 658
PartiesMary B. SMITH, Appellant, v. Milton B. SMITH, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

C. W. H. Bangs, Huntington, New & New, Indianapolis, Russell T. Keith, Peru, for appellant.

Parry & Barns, Merl A. Barns, Arthur W. Parry, Ft. Wayne, Cole, Wildman & Cole, Russell J. Wildman, Albert H. Cole, Jr., Peru, for appellee.

PFAFF, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Miami Circuit Court in an action by the appellee against the appellant for divorce and determining the property rights of the parties. The sole error relied upon for reversal is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.

Various errors are assigned upon which a reversal of the decree is asked. In view of the conclusion we have reached it seems unnecessary to dwell upon them.

On September 29, 1954, and prior to the oral argument the appellee filed his verified motion to dismiss this appeal, said motion being predicated upon the basis that appellant had accepted and availed herself of certain benefits of the judgment and therefore she was estopped from prosecuting her appeal. At the time of the filing of appellee's motion to dismiss, the court deemed it appropriate and desirable to hear the oral arguments before ruling on the motion, and the ruling on the motion was on the 23rd day of November, 1954, ordered held in abeyance pending the argument on the merits. Since the arguments on the merits we have now concluded that appellee's motion should be sustained and this appeal dismissed.

In the decree of the Miami Circuit Court appears the following entry:

'The court having heard the evidence and argument of counsel and being sufficiently advised in the premises finds for the plaintiff that the allegations of his complaint are true and that he is entitled to a divorce from the defendant. The Court further finds that the parties to this action have effected a settlement of their property rights, custody of their minor child and permanent support, which agreement is approved by the Court in all respects, except insofar as the same is modified by the following provisions of this decree: The Court finds that the defendant is entitled to, and is now awarded, alimony in the sum of $45,000.00, said amount to be paid as follows: $2,475.00 in cash, and the balance by conveyance to defendant of the home property, household goods, and farm tools and implements located on State Road 5 north of the City of Huntington, Indiana, and of a total value of $25,140.00; also the transfer 1,430 shares of the common capital stock of Hettrick Mfg. Co. of the value of $17,160.00; also by the transfer to defendant of two oil paintings now in the home of said parties and described as Group One, of the value of $225.00, thereby making a grand total of $45,000.00.'

It appears from the appellee's verified motion to dismiss that the appellee did on the 23rd day of February, 1954, in payment of the alimony judgment, execute, for the benefit of the appellant, instruments of transfer of the real estate, the stock and household furniture, farm tools, farm implements and paid the cash, all as ordered by the court, and more specifically a bill of sale for the following items of personal property:

1. 1 Ford Tractor with hydraulic lift and with scraper blade and attachment

2. 1 Avery disc

3. 1 Worthington mower

4. 1 Tractor drawn Roller

5. 1 Montgomery Ward Sprayer

6. 1 Extension ladder

That said bill of sale was executed to the appellant and deposited with the Community State Bank of Huntington as escrow agent.

That on or about the 28th day of April, 1954, appellant sold the above described personal property to a neighbor, receiving from him in consideration therefor cash in the sum of $1,125 and executed a bill of sale for each and all of said items; that appella...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Tassie v. Tassie
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 7 Abril 1976
    ...788 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.1972); Wilson v. Wilson, 159 Cal.App.2d 330, 323 P.2d 1017, 1019--1020 (D.Ct.App.1958); Smith v. Smith, 125 Ind.App. 658, 129 N.E.2d 374, 375--376 (App.Ct.1955); Harris v. Harris, 67 App.D.C. 85, 89 F.2d 829, 830--831 (1937); Gerbig v. Gerbig, 60 Nev. 292, 108 P.2d 317, ......
  • O'Connor v. O'Connor
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 10 Diciembre 1969
    ...cases estop that spouse from the prosecution of an appeal. Finke v. Finke (1963), 135 Ind.App. 65, 191 N.E.2d 516. Smith v. Smith (1955), 125 Ind.App. 658, 129 N.E.2d 374. However, there are obvious limitations to this theory where the acceptance of certain financial benefits is the only ev......
  • State v. Kraszyk, 29822
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 16 Mayo 1960
    ...Richards, 1899, 152 Ind. 528, 530, 53 N.E. 765; McGrew v. Grayston et al., 1896, 14 Ind. 165, 167, 41 N.E. 1027; Smith v. Smith, 1955, 125 Ind.App. 658, 661, 129 N.E.2d 374; Intertype Corporation v. Clark-Congress Corporation, 7 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 626, This rule is, however, subject to th......
  • Alderson v. Alderson
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 16 Noviembre 1971
    ...v. St. Joseph Superior Court (1948), 226 Ind. 372, 81 N.E.2d 373; Davis v. Davis (1951), 229 Ind. 414, 99 N.E.2d 77; Smith v. Smith (1955), 125 Ind.App. 658, 129 N.E.2d 374; Finke v. Finke (1963), 135 Ind.App.65, 191 N.E.2d 516; and Hedgecoth v. Hedgecoth (1966), 139 Ind.App. 162, 217 N.E.2......
  • 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