State v. Bridwell, 1
| Docket Nº | S |
| Citation | 241 Ind. 135, 170 N.E.2d 233 |
| Case Date | October 31, 1960 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 233
Indiana, on the relation of John Peters, Charles M. Dawson
and H. E. Bodine, as members of and constituting the State
Highway Department of Indiana, Petitioners,
v.
Robert V. BRIDWELL, Special Judge in the case of Jules T.
Gradison and Rita J. Gradison vs. John Peters, Charles M.
Dawson, H. E. Bodine, George M. Foster, Jack A. Haymarker,
and Albert Steinwedel, pending in Room I, Superior Court of
Marion County, M. Walter Bell, Regular Judge, Superior Court
of Marion County, Room No. 1, Superior Court of Marion
County, Room No. 1, Superior Court of Marion County, Respondents.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1960.
[241 Ind. 136]
Page 234
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Robert Hollowell, Indianapolis, Special Counsel, Hollowell & Hamill, Indianapolis, of counsel, for petitioners.Smith & Jones, Indianapolis, for respondents.
ARTERBURN, Judge.
The State of Indiana, in its Sovereign Capacity and on the relation of John Peters et al. as members of the State Highway Department of Indiana, petitioned this Court for a writ of mandate and prohibition to confine the respondent, Robert V. Bridwell, Special Judge, Superior Court of Marion County, Room 1 and M. Walter Bell, Regular Judge thereof, to their lawful jurisdiction in a certain cause of action filed in the Superior Court of Marion County, Room 1 as Cause No. S60-4769 entitled Jules T. Gradison and Rita J. Gradison, plaintiffs v. John Peters, Charles M. Dawson, H. E. Bodine, George M. Foster, Jack A. Haymaker and Albert Steinwedel, defendants.
The action filed in Superior Court of Marion County, Room 1 sought to enjoin certain acts in another case (being a condemnation action to take land for highway [241 Ind. 137] purposes pending in the Superior Court of Marion County, Room 3). Among the acts sought to be enjoined was the payment of the appraisers' award in that case by Albert Steinwedel as Auditor of State, the taking of possession of the land so appropriated and the executing of contracts for the highway work by state officials. A restraining order was issued without notice by the trial court (respondent herein) restraining such action. We thereupon issued a temporary writ of prohibition against such interference by the respondent judges in the case pending in Superior Court Room No. 1.
The Gradisons, in their action for injunction and restraining order in Superior Court Room No. 1, allege that they bring the action as taxpayers. Their complaint, however, shows that they are also the owners of the real estate condemned and appropriated in the prior pending action by the State of Indiana for highway purposes. They further allege that they agreed to certain stipulations in the condemnation action (to withdraw their objections and to an appraisal) by reason of the false and fraudulent threats 'of the relators to take more property and in fact all their property unless they cooperated'.
On the other hand, the relators claim that the gravamen of the action brought by the respondents in Superior Court Room No. 1 is really an attempt to get a court to determine whether or not the State should plan the highway so as to go over or under Twenty-First Street and that the Highway Department and state officials are, in fact, enjoined until they give consideration to the alternative designs proposed by the Gradisons and until they alter the plans and designs to conform to those propounded by the Gradisons; that [241 Ind. 138] the injunctive action brought by the Gradisons seeks to control the discretion of the state officials.
The restraining order issued in this case on July 25, 1960 by the respondent trial court prevented the State of Indiana from paying the appraisers' award as damages to the Gradisons for the land taken and from entering into construction contracts for more than $3,000,000. The restraining order was issued without notice and on a bond in the penal sum of $5,000. The record shows the Gradisons then filed a motion to continue the hearing on the temporary injunction. There has since been, upon application of the Gradisons, a motion for a change of venue from the regular judge. Ninety days later no hearing had yet been held on the temporary injunction.
The record shows that the Gradisons, in the original condemnation action in Superior Court Room No. 3, filed a motion to set aside all proceedings therein subsequent to the objections filed by the Gradisons to the original condemnation complaint. In that motion they set out substantially all
Page 235
the allegations with reference to fraud and being coerced into withdrawing...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hiatt v. Yergin, 871A145
...theory which is most apparent, and most clearly outlined, by the facts stated.' (Emphasis supplied.) See also: State v. Bridwell, (1960) 241 Ind. 135, 170 N.E.2d Thus, the theory of a cause is determined from the general scope and tenor of the pleadings. Burk v. Brown, (1915) 58 Ind.App. 41......
-
Hazel v. Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County, 1271A282
...others of coordinate position is applicable to the various rooms and judges of the Marion County Superior Court. State v. Bridwell (1960), 241 Ind. 135, 141, 170 N.E.2d The principle which appellant argues as applicable and as stated immediately above is truly a principle of 'jurisdiction' ......
-
State ex rel. American Fletcher Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Daugherty, 1
...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)......
-
Goshen City Court v. State ex rel. Carlin, 572A234
...defendant has an absolute right. 4 I.C.1971, 18--1--14--5; Ind.Stat.Ann. § 4--6002 (Burns 1968); State v. Bridwell, Special Judge (1960), 241 Ind. 135, 170 N.E.2d 233; State ex rel. McClure v. Marion Superior Court (1959), 239 Ind. 472, 158 N.E.2d 264. The Goshen City Court has attempted to......
-
Hiatt v. Yergin, 871A145
...theory which is most apparent, and most clearly outlined, by the facts stated.' (Emphasis supplied.) See also: State v. Bridwell, (1960) 241 Ind. 135, 170 N.E.2d Thus, the theory of a cause is determined from the general scope and tenor of the pleadings. Burk v. Brown, (1915) 58 Ind.App. 41......
-
Hazel v. Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County, 1271A282
...others of coordinate position is applicable to the various rooms and judges of the Marion County Superior Court. State v. Bridwell (1960), 241 Ind. 135, 141, 170 N.E.2d The principle which appellant argues as applicable and as stated immediately above is truly a principle of 'jurisdiction' ......
-
State ex rel. American Fletcher Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Daugherty, 1
...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)......
-
Goshen City Court v. State ex rel. Carlin, 572A234
...defendant has an absolute right. 4 I.C.1971, 18--1--14--5; Ind.Stat.Ann. § 4--6002 (Burns 1968); State v. Bridwell, Special Judge (1960), 241 Ind. 135, 170 N.E.2d 233; State ex rel. McClure v. Marion Superior Court (1959), 239 Ind. 472, 158 N.E.2d 264. The Goshen City Court has attempted to......