State ex rel. Wabash Valley Coach Co. v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 24 March 1943
• Docket Number: 27844.
• Citation: 47 N.E.2d 324,221 Ind. 274
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WABASH VALLEY COACH CO. et al. v. BEASLEY et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

47 N.E.2d 324

221 Ind. 274

STATE ex rel. WABASH VALLEY COACH CO. et al. v. BEASLEY et al.

No. 27844.

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 24, 1943

Adamson Blair & Adamson and Thomas P. Gallagher, all of Terre Haute, for appellant.

B F. Small, of Terre Haute, for appellee.

SHAKE Judge.

On January 14, 1943, this court reversed the judgment of the Superior Court of Vigo County, No. 2, Honorable John H Beasley, Special Judge, in the case of Wabash Valley Coach Co. et al. v. Turner, with a written opinion which concluded with the following mandate: 'The judgment is reversed, with instructions to the trial court to restate its conclusions of law in conformity with this opinion, and to enter judgment for the defendants.' 46 N.E.2d 212, 218.

A petition for rehearing was denied on February 8, 1943, and the opinion and mandate was certified to and received by the court below on February 16, 1943. For some unexplained reason the mandate has not been complied with.

After the above case was finally disposed of by this court the relators herein filed in the original cause in the court below an information in the nature of a supplemental proceeding, charging that the respondents had interfered and were interfering with the management, business and property of the Wabash Valley Coach Company, in violation of the final judgment mandated by this court and in violation of a permanent injunction theretofore entered in said cause by the trial court. The relators prayed for orders requiring said named respondents to desist from such interference and to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violation of said injunction.

The respondents Turner, Hammond and Walters thereupon filed objections to the Honorable Richard V. Newton, regular judge of said Vigo Superior Court, No. 2, hearing the issues presented by said information and asserting that the rightful jurisdiction of said matter was before the Honorable John H. Beasley, special judge of said court who had rendered the judgment from which the appeal had been prosecuted to this court. The regular judge sustained said objections, whereupon the special judge undertook to assume jurisdiction. The relators then made application to this court for a writ of prohibition against the special judge and a writ of mandate against the regular judge to determine which has jurisdiction to entertain said information. Temporary writs were granted as prayed for, a response has been filed, and oral arguments heard. The facts, as stated herein, are not in dispute.

If the special judge had promptly complied with the mandate of this court when the same was officially called to his attention this controversy would probably have been averted. Said mandate was clear, positive, and unequivocal. It commanded the special judge to restate his conclusions of law in conformity with the opinion and to enter judgment for the defendants. Nothing was left to the discretion of the judge. For the purposes of the case now before us we will, therefore, treat that as having been done which ought to have been done.

The statute authorizing special judges provides that they shall have power to hear and determine the...