Smith v. Uhler, 11,764

• Citation: 99 Ind. 140
• Case Date: December 19, 1884
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

99 Ind. 140

Smith v. Uhler

No. 11,764

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 19, 1884

From the Jackson Circuit Court.

B. H Burrell and F. Emerson, for appellant.

W. K Marshall, for appellee.

OPINION

Colerick C.

The appellant sued the appellee for damages, which he alleged in his complaint were sustained by him in consequence of certain false and fraudulent representations that were made to him by the appellee to effect an exchange between them of certain property. As no question arises on the pleadings in the action, it is unnecessary to refer to them. The issues were tried by the court, and resulted in the rendition of a finding and judgment in favor of the appellee.

The record shows that the trial was concluded on the 28th day of April, 1883, and that the case was then taken under advisement by the judge, who, afterwards, on the 5th day of July, 1883, filed, in writing, his determination therein as required by the statute (R. S. 1881, section 551), at which time court was not in session, and more than sixty days had expired from the time the action was taken under advisement. On the first day of the next term of the court thereafter the appellant moved the court to set aside the submission of, and the determination of the court in, said action, because: 1st. The judge failed to file his determination therein within sixty days from the time the action was taken under advisement as required by the statute. 2d. The court neglected and omitted to make a special finding of the facts in the action, and its conclusions of law thereon, as requested by the appellant. And also then moved the court for a venire de novo, assigning as the sole cause for its support the failure of the judge to file his determination in the action within the time prescribed in the statute. Both of these motions were overruled, and, thereupon, the appellant moved the court for a new trial, which motion was also overruled, and these several rulings are the only errors assigned by the appellant for the reversal of the judgment.

No error was committed by the court in refusing to set aside its determination in the action because it was not filed within the time required by the statute. See Jones v Swift, 94 Ind. 516, where the statute referred to was construed by this court adversely to the views that are urged by the appellant in this case. It was there said: "This statute is of a remedial nature, and was, evidently, enacted in the interest and for the benefit of litigants, in expediting the final disposition of their actions in courts of justice, by requiring the judges thereof trying the same, to render within a reasonable time, so prescribed, their decisions therein. It is to be construed as a rule for the government of the court, and as a compulsory means of compelling judges to render prompt decisions in actions tried by them, so as to mitigate, to that extent, the annoyance and expense...