Tribune-Star Pub. Co. v. Fortwendle, TRIBUNE-STAR
| Decision Date | 08 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | TRIBUNE-STAR,No. 18394,18394 |
| Citation | 116 N.E.2d 548,124 Ind.App. 618 |
| Parties | PUB. CO., Inc. v. FORTWENDLE. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rosenfeld & Wolfe, Terre Haute, for appellant.
Crawford & Crawford, Fred H. Thoms, Terre Haute, for appellee.
Appellee's petition for rehearing asserts three alleged errors in the opinion as written: (1) That the issue of appellant's failure to install a safety device upon its elevator was not withdrawn from the jury as grounds of negligence, as stated; (2) that the court failed to discuss that issue in its opinion, and (3) that the '* * * instructions as * * * given by the trial court, taken in their entirety, fairly instructed the jury and made harmless the error, if any, in refusing Appellant's tendered instruction No. 6.'
The court, in its instruction No. 2 stated in part: 'I instruct you * * * that the Defendant in this case was under no duty or obligation to provide the freight elevator in question with a safety device which would prevent the elevator in question from falling. * * *' It was upon that instruction and the oral argument of counsel that this court concluded that the issue of appellant's failure to install a safety device had been withdrawn from the jury. However, it is immaterial to the determination of this case whether or not the effect of the above instruction was to withdraw the case from the jury, for the reason that appellant was clearly entitled to a new trial because of the refusal of the court to give appellant's tendered instruction No. 6.
Appellee urges a rehearing on the ground that this court failed to give a written opinion upon the safety device issue. Appellee relies on Article 7, § 5, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. However, once this court had decided that reversible error had been committed by the trial court in failing to withdraw paragraph 6(a), from the jury, as requested by appellant's tendered instruction No. 6, this court was not required by the constitutional provision referred to to discuss any other issue raised on the appeal. This particular constitutional provision requires, on appeal, a decision with respect only to such question or questions as are necessary to 'determination of the cause in the Appellate Court.' Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 1907, 39 Ind.App. 592, 596, 80 N.E. 436, 438; Willets v. Ridgway, 1857, 9 Ind. 367. See also 11 Am.Jur., Constitutional Law, § 111. As soon as this court determined that, on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohannan v. Bohannan
...State, 1956, 236 Ind. 151, 170, 139 N.E.2d 185; Tribune-Star Publishing Co., Inc. v. Fortwendle, 1954, 124 Ind.App. 617, 115 N.E.2d 215, 116 N.E.2d 548. Reviewing the pertinent part of said section of our statute, we find it provides, in part, the 'Divorces may be decreed by the circuit, su......
-
Richmond Gas Corp. v. Reeves, 671A114
...trial. Lamb v. York (1969), 252 Ind. 252, 247 N.E.2d 197; Tribune-Star Publ. Co. v. Fortwendle (1953), 124 Ind.App. 618, 115 N.E.2d 215, 116 N.E.2d 548. However, if there is any evidence from which reasonable inferences can be drawn tending to support the theory, there is a question of fact......
-
Ewell v. King
...alleged specifications of error. Tribune-Star Publ. Co., Inc. v. Fortwendle (1954), 124 Ind.App. 618, 115 N.E.2d 215, rehearing denied 116 N.E.2d 548; Flowers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 151, 139 N.E.2d Judgment reversed and this cause is now remanded to the court below with instructions that......
-
Ewing v. Timmons
...not discuss the other questions in the case. See, Tribune-Star Pub. Co., Inc. v. Fortwendle (1954), 124 Ind.App. 618, 115 N.E.2d 215, 116 N.E.2d 548; Flowers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 151, 139 N.E.2d 185; Callahan v. New York Cent. R. Co. (1962), Ind.App., 180 N.E.2d 547, 183 N.E.2d While i......