103 Ind. 310 | Ind. | 1885
Lead Opinion
The record of this cause shows that, on the the 29th day of June, 1883, appellant’s motion for a new trial for cause having been overruled, the court rendered judgment in appellee’s favor for the recovery of certain real estate, and the costs of suit, from which judgment the appellant prosecuted an appeal in this court. After such judgment was affirmed here, on June 12th, 1884, but before such appeal was finally disposed of here, on November 12th, 1884, by the overruling of appellant’s petition for a rehearing, the record further shows that, on the 28th day of June, 1883, the appellant presented to the trial court its application in writing for a new trial as matter of right, under the provisions of section 1064, E. S. 1881, and, on the same day, filed in open court its written undertaking, with sureties approved by such court, that it would pay all costs and damages which should be recovered against it in this action. The
Afterwards, on the 27th day of October, 1884, the parties appeared in the court below, and the appellee moved the court in writing to set aside its order and judgment, of the 28th day of June, 1884, vacating its previous judgment and granting the appellant a new trial of this cause, as matter of right, under the statute, upon the ground and for the reason that, by reason of the pendency of the aforesaid appeal from such previous judgment in this cause, in the Supreme Court as aforesaid, the circuit court had no jurisdiction, power or authority to vacate and set aside the judgment so appealed from, .and grant such new trial as of right, as was done in this cause, or to hear or entertain appellant’s application therefor. The circuit court sustained the appellee’s motion, and set aside its order and judgment of June 28th, 1884, vacating its previous judgment of June 29th, 1883, and granting appellant a neiv trial of this cause, as a matter of right.
The appellant excepted to the decision of the circuit court upon appellee’s motion, and has appealed therefrom, and, by proper assignments of error here, has presented the question of the correctness of that decision for the consideration of this court.
In section 1064, R. S. 1881, under which the appellant’s application for a new trial of this cause, as a matter of right, was addressed to the circuit court, it is provided as follows: '“The court rendering the judgment, on application made within one year thereafter by the party against whom judgment is rendered, his heirs, assigns, or representatives, and on the applicant giving an undertaking, with surety to be approved by the court or clerk, that he will pay all costs and
In this case, the appellant made its application for a new trial as of right, to the proper court, within the time given, and, in all respects, complied strictly and literally with the terms and requirements of the statute. But it is claimed that by reason of the appeal to this court, and of the pendency of such appeal, the circuit court is deprived of all jurisdiction to grant an application for a new trial, when the statute imperatively requires that it shall grant such new-trial. In the case provided for therein, the section of the statute quoted confers jurisdiction of an application for a new trial as of right, upon the court rendering the judgment;: and the fact, if it be the fact, that such judgment has been appealed from, does not render such court any the less the court which rendered the judgment, nor deprive it of its: express statutory jurisdiction. When the application is made to the proper court, within the time, limited by the statute for such new trial as of right, the court has no discretion ;■ it must vacate the judgment and grant such new trial. When the judgment is thus vacated, if it has been appealed from, it will be vacated and set aside as well in the appellate court as in the court rendering the judgment, and if the action of the latter court, in vacating the judgment, is certified to the appellate court, the appeal will be stricken from its docket without further action thereon.
This is not a case in which it can be correctly said that the party has his election between two remedies, and that, if he choose and pursue one, he can not afterwards claim the benefit of the other. In such cases as the one at bar, the statute quoted gives the losing party an additional right or remedy,, peculiar to the case. He may, if he choose so to do, first exhaust all the methods, common to other civil actions, for the purpose of obtaining a new trial, and then, if he fail, he
For the reasons given we are of opinion that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s motion to set aside its order and judgment vacating its previous judgment and granting the appellant a new trial of this cause as of right, under the statute.
The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to overrule appellee’s motion, etc., and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion.
I can not concur in the prevailing opinion for two reasons:
First The appeal took the case from the jurisdiction of the circuit court, and that court could not, while the case was in the Supreme Court, grant a new trial either as of right or for cause.
Second. The appellant had an election between inconsistent remedies, and having elected that of appeal he can not go into the trial court and secure a new trial.
Filed Oct. 17, 1885.