Spanier v. Spanier, 18084

Decision Date01 February 1951
Docket NumberNo. 18084,18084
Citation120 Ind.App. 700,96 N.E.2d 346
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Earl W. Johnson, Hammond, for appellant.

Straley Thorpe, Hammond, for appellee.

MARTIN, Judge.

Appellant brought this action against appellee for partition, alleging that the parties are tenants in common of certain real estate. From an adverse judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal, claiming error by the court in overruling his motion for a new trial.

At the outset we are met by appellee's contention that no question is presented because the grounds of the motion are such as may only be presented by independent assignments of error. However this may have been formerly, appellee's contention is without merit by reason of Rule 2-6. This rule now provides: 'If, in the trial court, a motion for a new trial is filed, each error relied upon, however and whenever arising up to the time of the filing of said motion, may be separately specified therein as a ground therefor, and an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in overruling said motion shall be sufficient to raise said asserted error on appeal.'

Appellee defaulted. The cause was submitted and evidence heard. The court found that the parties were each entitled to an undivided one-half of the real estate. Commissioners were appointed, who reported that the premises cannot be divided without damage to the owners. The court then found the property to be indivisible and appointed a commissioner to sell the same at private sale.

Thereafter, apparently at a later term of court, appellee appeared and filed her verified petition to set aside the findings and proceedings. Appellant's demurrer to this petition was overruled, and this ruling is challenged. Appellant says the petition or application is required by the statute, § 2-1068, Burns' 1946 Repl., to be by complaint filed and notice issued as an original actions. 'However, this court has held that where an application to set aside a judgment is required to be by independent action, it will be so treated notwithstanding it is entitled as part of the original action and designated as a motion.' Gilmer v. Hurst, 1946, 117 Ind.App. 102, 69 N.E.2d 608, 609, citing Vail v. Department of Financial Institutions, 1938, 106 Ind.App. 39, 17 N.E.2d 854. When appellant filed his demurrer to the petition he thereby waived the failure of process. Gilmer v. Hurst, supra.

Appellant asserts that the court erred in setting aside the default judgment without first hearing evidence. We find nothing in appellant's brief which indicates that no evidence was heard, and therefore presume that the court acted regularly.

After various pleadings were filed, the cause was submitted to trial on appellant's complaint. At the conclusion of appellant's evidence appellee filed what she designates as a demurrer to the evidence, asking that the court find for the appellee. The court made an entry that the demurrer was sustained, found for appellee and entered judgment that appellant take nothing by his complaint; that appellee recover her costs herein. This action is challenged as error.

While the document is designated a demurrer to the evidence it is obviously not that. It does not set out appellant's evidence. Rather it is a motion to find for appellee, and must be so treated.

This motion presents the question as to whether or not the evidence introduced on behalf of appellant, assuming it to be true, and considering as provided all facts which the evidence proves, or by legitimate inference tends to prove, establishes the appellant's case as laid. Abernathy v. McCoy, 19...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Emmons v. Sanders
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • July 15, 1959
    ...165 Pa.Super. 78, 67 A.2d 802. However, the prevailing and better view is to the contrary. Loper v. Loper, supra; Spanier v. Spanier, 1951, 120 Ind.App. 700, 96 N.E.2d 346; Singleton v. Cushman, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 183, 70 N.E.2d 642; Donnelly v. Donnelly, 1951, 198 Md. 341, 84 A.2d 89; Perr......
  • Pierce v. Hall
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • September 7, 1960
    ...the deed would create a tenancy in common only. It was so held in Loper v. Loper, Del.Super.1934, 170 A. 804; Spanier v. Spanier, 1951, 120 Ind.App. 700, 96 N.E.2d 346; Singleton v. Cushman, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 183, 70 N.E.2d 642; Bell v. Little, 1922, 204 App.Div. 235, 197 N.Y.S. 674; Grant......
  • Perez v. Gilbert
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 20, 1992 common and not as joint tenants. Singleton v. Crushman (1947), 117 Ind.App. 183, 185, 70 N.E.2d 642, 643. Spainer v. Spainer (1951), 120 Ind.App. 700, 704, 96 N.E.2d 346, 347-48. Yocum contends that Singleton and Spainer are distinguishable because in both cases the parties were never le......
  • Hobbs v. Lindsey, 29759
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 29, 1959
    ...filed a motion to find for the defendant. This, in effect, admitted the verity of all the facts in evidence. Spanier v. Spanier, 1951, 120 Ind.App. 700, 703, 96 N.E.2d 346, 347; Smith v. Switzer, 1933, 205 Ind. 404, 409, 186 N.E. 764, Under the evidence in the record the sustaining of the m......
  • 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