State ex rel. Intern. Harvester Co. v. Allen Circuit Court

• Decision Date: 19 August 1976
• Docket Number: No. 1075S296,1075S296
• Citation: 352 N.E.2d 487,265 Ind. 175
• Parties: STATE of Indiana on the relation of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, Relator, v. ALLEN CIRCUIT COURT and Honorable Ray Ade, Special Judge for the Allen Circuit Court, Respondents.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 487

352 N.E.2d 487

265 Ind. 175

STATE of Indiana on the relation of INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY, Relator, v. ALLEN CIRCUIT COURT and Honorable Ray Ade, Special Judge for the Allen Circuit Court, Respondents.

No. 1075S296.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Aug. 19, 1976.

Milford M. Miller, Fort Wayne, for relator.

David B. Keller, Ralph R. Blume, David A. Travelstead, Fort Wayne, Ted S. Miller, Huntington, for respondents.

DeBRULER, Justice.

On October 8, 1974, the Common Council of Fort Wayne passed an ordinance for the purpose of annexing an area of land at its borders. On December 18, 1974, landowners in the area, including relator, filed a remonstrance against this proposed annexation in the Allen Circuit Court, and the case now pends before the Honorable Ray Ade, Special Judge.

On September 3, 1975, relator filed a petition with the trial court to stay that remonstrance proceeding. The petition was denied on September 24, 1975. On September 29, 1975, relator filed its motion to reconsider such ruling, and that motion was denied. By this original action, relator seeks to require the trial court to hold the remonstrance proceeding in abeyance pending the outcome of another case pending in the Whitley Circuit Court.

In the trial court, relator based his motion for stay of proceedings upon the fact that the land sought to be annexed by Fort Wayne in its 1974 ordinance is the same land which has been the subject of three prior attempts at annexation, one by Fort Wayne itself and two by the City of New Haven; and that each of these prior annexation ardinances is itself the subject of separate but ongoing trial court challenges; and that none of those cases has been finally disposed of. In chronological order of their original initiation, they are:

1. On January 5, 1951, the Town of New Haven filed with the Allen County Commissioners a petition to annex the subject area. The annexation was approved, and the Allen Circuit Court upheld it against remonstrance, but the Second District Court of Appeals reversed in City of Fort Wayne v. Board of Trustees of Town of New Haven, (1971) 150 Ind.App. 519, 277 N.E.2d 38. On remand, and after a change of venue, the Noble Circuit Court entered a final judgment, which is on appeal in the Court of Appeals.

2. On January 30, 1951, the Common Council of Fort Wayne passed an ordinance purporting to annex the subject land. A suit by remonstrators against this annexation is still pending in the Allen Circuit Court.

3. On January 17, 1972, the Common Council of New Haven adopted an ordinance annexing the subject real estate. Relator and others filed remonstrances. But, on June 30, 1975, relator withdrew its remonstrance and, on July 1, 1975, the Allen Circuit Court dismissed all other remonstrances. Prior to the withdrawal and dismissals, Fort Wayne filed a declaratory judgment action collaterally attacking the annexation ardinance. Relator intervened in July, 1975. The action is presently pending in the Whitley Circuit Court.

In its petition for a writ before us, relator alleges a conflict of jurisdiction between the remonstrance proceeding against the 1974 Fort Wayne annexation ordinance pending in the Allen Circuit Court and the prior collateral claim contesting the 1972 New Haven ordinance pending in the Whitley Circuit Court. Relator does not use the ongoing cases in the Court of Appeals and the Allen Circuit Court, in which the two 1951 ordinances are contested, as bases for its claim of conflicting jurisdiction.

The proposition upon which relator bases its claim for a writ of prohibition is well settled. An unseemly conflict of jurisdiction exists between two courts of coordinate jurisdiction where both exert authority over cases between the same parties and involving the same subject matter and issues. State ex rel. American Reclamation and Refining Co., Inc. v. Marion Superior Court, Room 1, (1971) 256 Ind. 507, 269 N.E.2d 869; State ex rel. Rader v. Lake Circuit Court, (1957) 237 Ind. 273, 145 N.E.2d 15. In such instances the jurisdiction of the court first acquiring such jurisdiction is deemed exclusive until the case is finally disposed of on appeal or otherwise. State ex rel. Ferger v. Circuit Court, (1949) 227 Ind. 212, 84 N.E.2d 585. And, in such instances this Court will enforce such exclusivity of jurisdiction by prohibiting the court last acquiring such jurisdiction from further exercise thereof.

The problem posed in the case is the application of that rule to the circumstances of this case. Respondent points out that the two requisites for application of the rule, namely, identity of subject matter and identity of parties in the two suits, are absent here, and concludes that the rule should not apply at all. State ex rel. Rader...