Kreger v. Bowman

Indiana Court of Appeals

Kreger v. Bowman

101 N.E.2d 433, 121 Ind. App. 606, 1951 Ind. App. LEXIS 239

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 2, 1951

DocketNo. 18,219

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 101 N.E.2d 433 (Kreger v. Bowman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kreger v. Bowman, 101 N.E.2d 433, 121 Ind. App. 606, 1951 Ind. App. LEXIS 239 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiltrout, J.

A motion was filed by appellant to strike from the files and docket of the estate of Alfred Sisk, deceased, a claim previously filed by appellees. This motion was overruled, and appellant would challenge this ruling. The motion is not set forth in the briefs.

Appellant treats this appeal as one from a final judgment. “To be appealable as a final judgment an order or judgment must be one which finally determines the rights of the parties in the suit, or in some distinct and definite branch of it, and which leaves no further question or direction for future determination by the court.” Greathouse v. McKinney (1942), 220 Ind. 462, 44 N. E. 2d 344; Home Electric Light & Power Co. v. Globe Tissue Paper Co. (1896), 145 Ind. 174, 44 N. E. 191; Zumpfe v. Piccadilly Realty Co. (1938), 214 Ind. 282, 13 N. E. 2d 715, 15 N. E. 2d 362; Gross Income Tax Div. v. National Bank (1948), 226 Ind. 293, 79 N. E. 2d 651; Blakeman v. Quinn (1950), 121 Ind. App. 72, 95 N. E. 2d 638.

The ruling in this case does not meet the test of a final judgment. We have determined not to pass upon this issue.

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 101 N. E. 2d 433.

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

Wiltrout, J.

A motion was filed by appellant to strike from the files and docket of the estate of Alfred Sisk, deceased, a claim previously filed by appellees. This motion was overruled, and appellant would challenge this ruling. The motion is not set forth in the briefs.

Appellant treats this appeal as one from a final judgment. “To be appealable as a final judgment an order or judgment must be one which finally determines the rights of the parties in the suit, or in some distinct and definite branch of it, and which leaves no further question or direction for future determination by the court.” Greathouse v. McKinney (1942), 220 Ind. 462, 44 N. E. 2d 344; Home Electric Light & Power Co. v. Globe Tissue Paper Co. (1896), 145 Ind. 174, 44 N. E. 191; Zumpfe v. Piccadilly Realty Co. (1938), 214 Ind. 282, 13 N. E. 2d 715, 15 N. E. 2d 362; Gross Income Tax Div. v. National Bank (1948), 226 Ind. 293, 79 N. E. 2d 651; Blakeman v. Quinn (1950), 121 Ind. App. 72, 95 N. E. 2d 638.

The ruling in this case does not meet the test of a final judgment. We have determined not to pass upon this issue.

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 101 N. E. 2d 433.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.E.2d 433, 121 Ind. App. 606, 1951 Ind. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreger-v-bowman-indctapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack