Oertling v. Oertling

Indiana Supreme Court

Oertling v. Oertling

78 N.E.2d 546, 226 Ind. 146, 1948 Ind. LEXIS 144

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 26, 1948

DocketNo. 17,653.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 78 N.E.2d 546 (Oertling v. Oertling) 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

Oertling v. Oertling, 78 N.E.2d 546, 226 Ind. 146, 1948 Ind. LEXIS 144 (Ind. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

The appeal in this case is from an order requiring an administratrix to file an inventory of all the personal property owned by her decedent at the time of his death. The Appellate Court opinion correctly, we think, holds that the order is not determinative of present rights of the parties or others to the property inventoried. It only lists it and does not pretend to fix rights based upon occurrences subsequent to death. This is not a final judgment, Greathouse v. McKinney (1942), 220 Ind. 462, 466, 467, 44 N. E. 2d 344, or an interlocutory order from which, under the statute, an appeal may be taken, § 2-3218, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, and it does not fall within the provisions of Rule 2-3 of this court. To transfer the case and dispose of it on the theory that the order appealed from was not appeal-able would reach the same result reached by the Appellate Court. It seems more simple to deny transfer *148 with this explanation to prevent any inference that we think an appeal was proper from the order involved.

Petition to transfer denied.

Note.—Reported in 78 N. E. 2d 546.

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

Per curiam.

The appeal in this case is from an order requiring an administratrix to file an inventory of all the personal property owned by her decedent at the time of his death. The Appellate Court opinion correctly, we think, holds that the order is not determinative of present rights of the parties or others to the property inventoried. It only lists it and does not pretend to fix rights based upon occurrences subsequent to death. This is not a final judgment, Greathouse v. McKinney (1942), 220 Ind. 462, 466, 467, 44 N. E. 2d 344, or an interlocutory order from which, under the statute, an appeal may be taken, § 2-3218, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, and it does not fall within the provisions of Rule 2-3 of this court. To transfer the case and dispose of it on the theory that the order appealed from was not appeal-able would reach the same result reached by the Appellate Court. It seems more simple to deny transfer *148 with this explanation to prevent any inference that we think an appeal was proper from the order involved.

Petition to transfer denied.

Note.—Reported in 78 N. E. 2d 546.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 N.E.2d 546, 226 Ind. 146, 1948 Ind. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oertling-v-oertling-ind-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack