Zimmerman v. Zumpfe
| Decision Date | 07 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | 27510. |
| Citation | 33 N.E.2d 102,218 Ind. 476 |
| Parties | ZIMMERMAN et al. v. ZUMPFE et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from Probate Court, Marion County; Smiley N Chambers, judge.
Todd & McCormack, of Indianapolis, for appellants.
Davis Pantzer, Baltzell & Sparks, Bachelder & Bachelder Fred Barrett, and Gustav H. Dongus, all of Indianapolis, for appellees.
Appellants are the holders of about 8% of the preferred stock of Piccadilly Realty Company, appellee David J. Smith holds the common stock, appellee McKinney is the receiver and the remaining appellees for themselves and others hold and represent the other 92% of the preferred stock of the company.
Appellants in describing the 'nature of the action' say that they are seeking an appeal 'from motion for new trial and petition on motion to set aside confirmation of a sale of all of the assets of Piccadilly Realty Company to a corporation known as Indianapolis Piccadilly Corporation, based on objections filed by such preferred stockholders to confirmation of such sale.' Their assignment of errors is that 'there is a manifest error in the proceedings and judgment' in that: 'The trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for new trial entitled as follows: Motion by stockholders to set aside confirmation of sale to Indianapolis Piccadilly Corporation and vacate all proceedings entered in this cause directing the sale of the assets of Piccadilly Realty Corporation to Indianapolis Piccadilly Corporation, and to vacate all proceedings approving reorganization plan of organization of Indianapolis Piccadilly Corporation, and for new trial of the issue presented to this court for sale of the physical assets of the Piccadilly Realty Corporation.'
Appellee Smith assigned cross-errors stating:
'There is manifest error in the judgment and proceedings, prejudicial to said appellee in this cause in this:
'The court erred in confirming the sale of the assets of the Piccadilly Realty Company after having found in its decree that said company was solvent, had paid all of its debts and was making a profit in its operation.
'The court erred in taking any action other than to terminate the receivership when it found in its decree that all of the creditors were paid and the property was being operated at a profit.'
These pleadings in this court are set out thus fully because it is not apparent from what judgment the appeal is sought. Obviously no appeal lies from a 'motion for new trial' or from a 'petition on motion.' None of the complaining parties specifies which of several orders appearing in the transcript is the judgment we are asked to reverse.
Appellees Zumpfe et al. have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal both as to appellants and appellee Smith. In the briefs on this motion the parties assume that the judgment in question is the order confirming the sale, not the order overruling appellant's so-called motion for a new trial.
The record shows that the order of sale was entered July 1, 1939, the order confirming the sale December 19, 1939, and that appellant's motion to set aside confirmation of the sale (the so-called motion for new trial) was filed January 13, 1940, and overruled April 2, 1940. The transcript with assignment of errors and assignment of cross-errors was filed July 1, 1940.
Except in certain cases where interlocutory orders may be appealed, no appeal lies from other than a final judgment. In this case the order entered in the December, 1939, term confirming the sale was such a judgment. That term had expired when the next step was taken January 13, 1940. If appellant's motion that day filed was a motion for new trial, the time for appeal ran from the date it was overruled. Otherwise the appeal was too late.
The motion in question as shown by its title above quoted was essentially a motion to vacate the judgment. It had a prayer asking only 'that the court completely vacate all proceedings herein, as may concern any step in the sale of said assets of this trust to Indianapolis Piccadilly Corporation.' In the body of the motion after first asking the court to vacate 'confirmation and approval' of said sale and all steps leading thereto, it adds: 'and move the court for new trial of the issue presented to his (sic) court involving the sale of the assets of such trust' for four specific reasons substantially as follows: (1) Error in approving a reorganization plan; (2) error in overruling objections of appellants to confirmation of bid; (3) error in confirming the bid and approving sale to Indianapolis Piccadilly Corporation; (4) error 'in assuming judicial supervision' of said corporation.
Our statute § 2-2401, Burns' Stat.1933, § 368, Baldwin's Stat.1934, prescribes eight grounds for new trial none of which, and particularly the sixth, is assigned in this motion. Where upon evidence submitted the trial court has made a finding, the question whether the evidence is sufficient to support the decision is not presented unless assigned as ground for new trial. The record shows that evidence was submitted when the receiver's report of sale was confirmed and the order of confirmance was based upon the evidence, which has not been brought into the record by bill of exceptions. Under these circumstances appellees Zumpfe et al., citing Zeplovitz v. Folk, Rec., 1935, 209 Ind 408, 197 N.E. 915, assert...
To continue reading
Request your trial