[DOWNLOAD] "City Michigan City v. Williamson" by 441. Supreme Court of Indiana No. 27 # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: City Michigan City v. Williamson
- Author : 441. Supreme Court of Indiana No. 27
- Release Date : January 16, 1940
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
SHAKE, J. On January 26, 1940, the LaPorte Circuit Court entered a judgment in an action therein pending to the effect that an order of the board of public works and Safety of Michigan City dismissing the appellee from its police force was entered without affording the appellee a fair hearing and that said order of dismissal was illegal. On February 1st the city filed a petition for a rehearing, which was denied on the same day. Thereafter, on February 8th, the city filed a motion to modify the judgment, which was overruled on April 8th. The city thereupon prayed an appeal to this court and the transcript was filed on July 6, 1940. The appellee has moved to dismiss on the ground that the appeal was not taken within 90 days, as required by rule 1 of this court adopted on June 21, 1937. If time is to be computed from the date when the judgment was entered or the motion for rehearing was denied, the appeal comes too late, but if it runs from the overruling of the motion to modify, the case is properly before us. The appellant relies primarily upon Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Kearns (1921), 191 Ind. 1, 128 N.E. 42. In that case, which was an ordinary civil action, this court held that the filing of a motion to modify a judgment during the term at which it is rendered suspends and postpones the finality of the judgment until the motion is ruled upon. The Conclusion was reached that a motion to modify made while the case is in fieri is a direct attack and prevents the judgment from becoming such a final determination as will cause the time for taking an appeal to begin to run. It is to be noted, however, that the proceeding which resulted in the judgment from which relief is here sought is special. The statute provides, among other things, that such proceedings are not civil actions within the contemplation of the code; that they shall take precedence over other pending litigation; that they may be tried in vacation as well as in term; that either party may petition for a rehearing within 10 days after a decision; and that the judgment shall become final when the petition for a rehearing is denied. Acts 1935, ch. 282, § 1, § 48-6105, Burns' 1933 (Supp.), § 11478, Baldwin's 1934. These features indicate a clear legislative intent that such proceedings should be treated in a summary manner. It was the evidence purpose of the Legislature to require persons aggrieved by judgments rendered in these proceedings to present all their objections thereto, including objections as to matters of form, by petition for a rehearing within 10 days after judgment.