Davis v. Davis

36 Ind. 160
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 36 Ind. 160 (Davis v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Davis v. Davis, 36 Ind. 160 (Ind. 1871).

Opinion

Buskirk, J.

This was a proceeding instituted by the appellants against, the appellees to obtain the partition of the real estate described in the petition. There was an answer filed to the petition, and a cross complaint was filed by Ann Davis, to which there was an answer. The case was, by the agreement of the parties, submitted to the court for trial. The court rendered a special finding of facts and his conclusions of law thereon. There was no exception to the decision of the court. A motion for a new trial was made, overruled, and an exception taken. The court then rendered an interlocutory order of partition, and appointed commissioners to make partition, and directed them to report at the next term. From this order the appellants appealed to this court. An appeal can only be taken to this court from a final judgment. Miller v. The State, 8 Ind. 325; Reese v. The State, 8 Ind. 416; Bradley v. Bearss, 4 Ind. 186; Shroyer v. Lawrence, 9 Ind. 322; Reese v. Beck, 9 Ind. 238; Pigg v. The State, 9 Ind. 363; Cole v. Peniwell, 5 Blackf. 175; Fuller v. Adams, 12 Ind. 559; Staley v. Dorset, 11 Ind. 367; Love v. Mikals, 12 Ind. 439; Crews v. Cleghorn, 13 Ind. 438; House v. Wright, 22 Ind. 383.

In proceedings for the partition of lands, the interlocutory decree for partition and appointment of commissioners does not constitute a final judgment; and no appeal can be taken to this court till the coming in of the report of the commis[161]*161sioners and the judgment of the court thereon. Clester v. Gibson, 15 Ind. 10; Griffin v. Griffin, 10 Ind. 170; Cook v. Knickerbocker, 11 Ind. 230; Wood v. Wilkinson, 13 Ind. 352.

M S. Robinson, for appellants. W. R. Pierse and H D. Thompson, for appellees.

There was no final judgment in the case under consideration, and consequently no appeal could be taken. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on this court by consent. Nor can this court, by taking and exercising jurisdiction in a cause where the right of appeal does not exist, acquire jurisdiction: so as to give the force and effect of a.decision to its ruling.. Its decision would be merely an obiter dictum.

■This appeal is dismissed, at the costs of the appellants, and the cause is remanded, with directions to the court below to receive the report of the commissioners, or if any of those appointed cannot act, to appoint others, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wedmore v. State
122 N.E.2d 1 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1954)
Bartle v. Walsh Construction Co.
180 N.E. 294 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1932)
City of Crawfordsville v. Brown
91 N.E. 252 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1910)
Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson
48 Fla. 226 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth
64 N.E. 900 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Lowery v. State Life Insurance
54 N.E. 442 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1899)
Voorhees v. Indianapolis Car & Manufacturing Co.
39 N.E. 738 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Huber v. Beck
32 N.E. 1025 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Champ v. Kendrick
30 N.E. 635 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1892)
Jeffersonville, Madison & Indianapolis Railroad v. Harrold
30 N.E. 158 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1892)
Benefiel v. Aughe
93 Ind. 401 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Doctor v. Hartman
74 Ind. 221 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Rennick v. Chandler
59 Ind. 354 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Ind. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-davis-ind-1871.