State ex rel. American Fletcher Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Daugherty

Decision Date08 June 1972
Docket NumberR,No. 1,No. 472S45,1,472S45
PartiesSTATE of Indiana on the Relation of AMERICAN FLETCHER NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Relator, v. Charles C. DAUGHERTY, Judge of the Superior Court of Marion County Roomespondent.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
W. Rudolph Steckler, Indianapolis, for relator

ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.

This case is before this court as an original action alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of Charles C. Daugherty, Judge of the Superior Court of Marion County, Room Number One, in issuing an injunction forbidding persons from engaging in certain acts.

The facts are as follows. James T. Mills, an individual residing in Marion County, filed certain claims against the estate of Sheldon A. Key, alleging purchase rights in and to some or all of the capital stock of Hyaline Plastics Corporation, an Indiana Corporation, held by American Fletcher National Bank & Trust Co., as executor of said estate, and entitlement to additional compensation as an employee of that corporation, pursuant to a purported contract of employment entered into by and between him and said decedent sometime in 1959.

Thereafter, Mills went to the Superior Court of Marion County, Charles C. Daugherty, Judge. Upon the basis of claims filed in the Probate Court and fear that AFNB, as Executor, would vote the stock at the 1972 annual meeting in a manner adverse to his interest, Mills petitioned the Superior Court for an injunction prohibiting the American Fletcher National Bank & Trust Co., acting in 'whatever capacity' from calling and attending any meeting of shareholders of the Hyaline Plastics Corporation. In addition, Mills requested that AFNB be restrained from voting any such shares or selling, pledging, etc. any of the shares until further order of the Superior Court, pending determination by the Probate Court of the claims filed with it by him in his behalf. Judge Daugherty issued a temporary restraining order without notice granting the relief requested and thereafter, upon hearing, issued a temporary injunction granting the same relief against executor pending the outcome of the claims filed by Mills filed in the Probate Court.

Two issues are presented to this court for our consideration:

1. Whether Judge Daugherty has jurisdiction by reason of subject matter to issue an injunction against executor prohibiting it from administering stock held by it as an Estate asset pending determination by the Probate Court of Marion County of rights previously asserted therein and to said stock by the petitioner for such injunctive relief.

2. Whether such prohibition can be extended to cover Trustee of a trust established several years ago, in the administration of other stock of the same company held by said trustee as a trust asset.

The case of Demma v. Forbes Lumber Co. (1961), 133 Ind.App. 204, 178 N.E.2d 455, reh. den. 181 N.E.2d 253, held that probate courts have only concurrent rather than exclusive jurisdiction over 'all actions by and against executors, administrators, guardians, assignees and trustees.' Within this concurrent jurisdiction the particular court has the implied power to act in any manner necessary and legally justifiable to carry out its judicial function. This certainly would include the right of a probate court to issue restraining orders or injunctions as the circumstances of the case called for. In addition, we point out that in IC 1971, 33--8--1--18, Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. (1968 Repl.) § 4--5119, the legislature has expressly granted to the probate courts the power to grant restraining orders and injunctions in the performance of their judicial function.

The question then becomes one of rightful jurisdiction in this matter. Who was the proper party to issue the injunction? This question, we believe, is answered by a very fundamental axiom of law, that being that courts of concurrent jurisdiction cannot exercise jurisdiction over the same subject at the same time, and that where one of the courts acquires jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, it is vested with such jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other court until the final disposition of the case. This rule is not mitigated where the subject matter before the separate courts is the same, but the actions are in different forms, i.e., a civil action and a petition for injunctive relief.

It is well settled that two courts of concurrent jurisdiction cannot deal with the same subject matter at the same time. State ex rel. Tuell v. Shelby Circuit Court (1939), 216 Ind. 231, 236, 23 N.E.2d 425. Once jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter has been secured, it is retained to the exclusion of other courts of equal competence until the case is determined. State ex rel. Poindexter v. Reeves (1952), 230 Ind. 645, 104 N.E.2d 735; State ex rel. Ferger v. Circuit Court of Marion County (1949), 227 Ind. 212, 84 N.E.2d 585; State v. Bridwell (1960), 241 Ind. 135, 170 N.E.2d 233; Brown v. Doak Co. (1922), 192 Ind. 113, 135 N.E. 343; State ex rel. State Bank of Greentown v. Howard Circuit Court (1958), 238 Ind. 448, 151 N.E.2d 515; State ex rel. Montgomery v. Superior Court of Marion County (1959), 238 Ind. 664, 154 N.E.2d 375. The court first acquiring jurisdiction holds the res in custodia legis (Allison v. State ex rel. Allison (1963), 243 Ind. 489, 497, 187 N.E.2d 565) so long as it is empowered to administer complete justice. 7 ILE Courts § 132 (1958). Clearly the probate court is in a position to administer complete justice to the parties in this case.

(T)he general and over-all powers confer upon probate courts in this state ample power...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Hazel v. Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 16 Noviembre 1972
    ... ... State v. Bridwell (1960), 241 Ind. 135, 141, 170 N.E.2d ... here presented is unlike that in State ex rel. City of ... Indpls. v. Hancock Cir. Ct ... American Fletcher Nat. B. & T. Co. v. Daugherty (1972), ... State Bank v. Howard Cir. Ct. (1958), 238 Ind. 448, 151 ... ...
  • Dragstrem v. Obermeyer
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 14 Febrero 1977
    ... ... , Weaver deposited the proceeds with the state court without waiting for an order responding to ... United States v. Sterling Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 360 F.Supp. 917, 925 ... See, e. g., State ex rel. American Fletcher Bank & Trust Co. v. Daugherty, ... ...
  • Artusi v. City of Mishawaka
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 2 Marzo 1988
    ... ... Coulson v. State" (1986), Ind.App., 488 N.E.2d 1154, 1156 ...   \xC2" ... State ex rel. International Harvester Co. v. Allen Circuit ... American Fletcher National Bank & Trust Co. v. Daugherty ... ...
  • Centex Home Equity Corp. v. Robinson, 49A02-0110-CV-644.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 18 Octubre 2002
    ... ... ROBINSON, Century Cellular Network, State of Indiana, Department of Revenue, FT Mortgage mpanies, d/b/a MNC Mortgage and Bank One Richmond, NA, Appellees-Defendants, and ... Newhouse v. Farmers Nat. Bank of Shelbyville, 532 N.E.2d 26, 27 ... In Kneeland v. American Loan & Trust Co., 136 U.S. 89, 93-94, 10 S.Ct ... E.2d 131, 135 (Ind.1994) (quoting State ex rel. International Harvester Co. v. Allen Cir. Ct., ... State ex rel. American Fletcher Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Daugherty, 258 Ind ... ...
  • 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