*1 rejected by by a contention the defendant that his imprisonment Federal authorities after the imposition of his Indiana sentence be credited in against the Indiana sentence. The and Weather- language Alford cases, Holland, by not overruled also supports this conclusion.6 ford Holland, sentences, We think it is clear that in criticizing in futuro did not purport to overrule the rule existing which does not give credit to a defendant for time on his Indiana sentence while he is an escapee case, or incarcerated in another jurisdiction. In this Defendant’s sentence designated the length time of punishment. Its expiration date was satisfied, earlier, not fixed the sentence but can be noted his actual service of the period of imprisonment, an act of executive clemency appropriate action the parole authorities.
The decision of the trial court is reversed part affirmed part. The trial court is instructed to reduce Defendant’s maximum sentence (25) (20) twenty-five years twenty years.
Chipman, P.J. concurs.
Young, concurs.
NOTE—Reported at
From the Putnam N. Judge. Circuit Francis O’Connor, Ruckelshaus, Bobbitt, Indianapolis, ArchN. Bobbitt & Rex- Greencastle, & Boyd, Lyon Boyd, appellees. ell A. for CASE SUMMARY Plaintiff-appellant personal Lola Mae her —in and as administratrix of the Estate of Daniel capacity Young appeals S. — — Lou appellees for defendants A. and Bonnie Clark Bryan in a Lola’s for bench trial of action of a con- specific land damages non-performance. tract sell and for due to We for remand further determinations.
FACTS and discussed the Bryans’ Daniel sale of the 160-acre farm to Bryans the Youngs; signed gave to Daniel the document set fact, forth in the court’s first finding infra. $72,000 sought
Daniel a loan of from a bank. The bank president farm, went to vice-president they informed the were there to appraise purpose farm the of a mortgage loan Daniel, and were shown the boundaries of the farm The bank Clark. the loan. approved
The trial court’s “Findings Conclusions of Law Judgment” stated: “The having had this cause under advisement and having evidence, exhibits,
considered the all sworn including testimony, depositions deposition exhibits introduced parties stipulation now pursuant to the request plaintiff enters herein his findings of fact as follows: 27,1973
“1. That on June the defendants gave executed and *3 to the Plaintiff Daniel S. Young the following paper which reads as follows: Bryan
‘We A. Bryan Clark & Bonnie Lou agree to sell our $72,000.00. 160 acres for This farm is located SE Sec¼ 15 Real estate taxes 5-V2. for 1972 are $467.62. We agree give possession March liability ‘The limit of insurance is as follows: $14,000.00 Farm Dwelling 4,500.00 Barn 2,000.00 Workshop Sm metal pole shed 500.00 5,000.00 Large pole metal shed rooms, ‘The house 8 has carpeted upstairs & steps, carpeted room & living bath. Enclosed back porch.
Signed June Bryan A. Clark Bryan’ Bonnie Lou “2. That said was written paper separate defendant Bon- Bryan nie Lou with the express permission and consent of her Bryan A. and bears the defendant separate husband and Bryan. Bryan A. both Bonnie Lou and Clark signatures delivery of such the paper That the execution and “3. after Lola Mae Young, S. died and the widow Plaintiff Daniel deceased, and the of Daniel S. surviving Young, is the widow of the estate of said decedent. Administratrix delivery the the set forth paper That no time after “4. at either of them file or deliver finding No. did the Plaintiffs or at of such offer. acceptance the Defendants an that is with such of fact the finds the law “Upon findings Court judgment the the enters said defendants.” Defendants and ISSUE was judgment the trial court’s Whether DECISION contrary to law judgment contends that the trial court’s er- applied its disclosed that it an finding inasmuch as fourth fact rule of to the facts. roneous law that offer finding the trial court held
This shows that a filing it shows that the trial court considered accepted; was not necessary to a contract. to be form delivery Youngs’ acceptance they unless were clear We cannot disturb said 52(A). Procedure, Clearly Trial Rule erroneous ly erroneous. Ind. Rules that, is the trial although support means there evidence decision, reviewing leaves the court’s record firm mistake has the definite conviction (1971), 150 Ind. Utility & Coke v. Wells committed. Citizens Gas been 78, 275 App. N.E.2d be must state that an offeree’s
It is not law of this is The accep- created. the offeror before a contract filed or delivered to must be com- overt act and must be evidenced some tance *4 of meeting par there is a the so that municated to the offeror (1958). I.L.E., accep 26 The Contracts §§ ties’ mind. 6 which verbally, writing, or acts manifest may be expressed tance Society the United States Assurance acceptance. Equitable the Life (1907), N.E. 41 80 682. v. Perkins Ind.App.
706 — Statute of does not the formation of govern Frauds1 contracts
Our only enforceability which have beenform but the of contracts ed. It does not void verbal contract for the sale of an interest County Blessinger Dubois Machine Co. v. in real property. (1971), 594, 274 149 Ind. N.E.2d 279. App. render a sell within
To contract to land enforceable the Statute (1) Frauds, sign it must be some which has writing: evidenced been ed the whom is party against the contract to be enforced (2) agent, his authorized which describes with reasonable (3) land, certainty party each and the which states certainty reasonable terms and of the promises the conditions McMahan Construction Co. whom and to whom were made. promises Brothers, Wegehoft v. Inc. N.E.2d 278. verbal may A contract for the sale of land be removed the opera of the tion Statute of Frauds the of part performance; doctrine
whether there was sufficient to doc invoke the trine is a which question an examination of the cir requires cumstances of each case. Id. See Dubois Co. County Machine Blessinger, supra, for some circumstances which are held generally sufficient applicable. make the doctrine
Inasmuch as the trial court utilized an erroneous standard in its fourth fact we its judgment conclude 15(N) Procedure, Pursuant Ind. Rules of Rule Appellate we retain jurisdiction over this cause remand it to the trial court with instruc- necessary tions that it any conduct further proceedings and within days hand down hereof date to correct and amend “Findings its Law and Judgment,” supra, determine following issues to the according standards enunciated herein. The issues which trial court shall determine are: 1. Whether the Youngs accepted offer. formed, If there was so that a contract was whether 1971,32-2-1-1. argues IC that the Statute of Frauds was not an issue in the
case at bar. reveals record that the asserted this affirmative defense thereby Procedure, answer properly their raised the issue. Ind. Rules of Trial 8(0. Rule *5 it to within bring of the contract sufficient was a memorandum there of Frauds. the Statute Frauds, whether there was the Statute of
3. If it was not within performance. the doctrine of part sufficient to invoke performance further proceedings. Remanded for C.J.
ROBERTSON, Lybrook, concur. REMAND REVIEW ON 5, 1977, down opinion this handed April J. On (No. 74), remanded this case was 1-576 A wherein Young Bryan Conclu Findings to amend its to the trial court with directions according to the three issues Judgment sions Law and determine court was The which the trial therein. issues legal principles announced to determine were: directed Bryans’ offer. accepted
1. Whether the Youngs formed, whether 2. If so that a contract was acceptance there was it bring a sufficient within there was memorandum contract of Frauds. Statute Frauds, there was 3. If it not the Statute of whether within of part performance. sufficient to invoke the doctrine 18,1977, proceedings further On the trial court conducted which of Law Findings pro- entered amended Fact in pertinent part vided follows: $ $
<<$ understanding That was a final or agreement 5. there never Daniel S. Bryans Young. or of the minds between meeting a Bryan’s by Young of 6. That there never was an offer, Young or orally, by any by or act or deed writing, either by his anyone behalf. Young in the submitted
7. That sometime summer of not Bryans accepted counter memorandum which was Bryans. (Plaintiff’s 1) 9. That the offer Exhibit No. was withdrawn
Bryans on 1973. October
* * * 11. That had no further negotiations or dealings Dan Young after the notice of withdrawal was sent to him (Young) October
* * * There was never an acceptance offer, orally, memorandum either in writing, act or deed *6 by anyone in his behalf. (Plaintiff’s 1) 2. The memorandum Exhibit No. does not con- elements, terms, tain all of the essential and conditions sufficient to constitute a contract.
3. That the law is with the defendants. 4. Since the answer to conclusion of law 1No. answers the Ap- peals Court Issue No. itas at 5 of appears page its Memorandum Decision, in negative, and since under this Court’s Conclusions 1, 2, No. and there was no acceptance and the law Youngs defendants, is with the sufficiency the issues of the of the memoran- dum and the of question part performance as contingently raised in Issues No. 2 and at page of said are answered in opinion, defendants, 1,2 favor of the by such findings and sees no reason to discuss them further.” Having reviewed the record in light of the trial court’s amended Find- of ings Fact and Conclusions of Law to the effect that no binding con- tract existed between Young Bryans, and the it is now the opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court clearly is not erroneous and should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Robertson, Lybrook, C. J. concur.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING 5,1977, court, April J. On this in an unpublished opinion, determined that the trial court applied had an erroneous standard to its fourth of fact thereby rendering its judgment clearly court, specifical- to the trial this case thereupon We remanded necessary fur- to conduct all with instructions jurisdiction,
ly retaining days within 60 opinion, with our in accordance ther proceedings Fact, of Findings amend its Con- correct and down date to of the hand Judgment. of Law and clusions court, order, filed with this trial court to this court’s
Pursuant Fact, 18,1977, Law Findings Amended Conclusions on April Judgment.
Thereafter, 26,1977, carefully Amended reviewing the July after Fact, by the submitted Judgment of Law and Findings court, of the trial opinion we were of the that the should be affirmed. not erroneous and was 26,1977, 18,1977 July April petitioner- In the interim between 17, 1977, correct errors. filed second motion to on June appellant, court handed down on opinion of this contends that Petitioner 26,1977, yet court had not ruled the trial July because premature 17,1977. disagree. We errors filed June on her second motion correct Findings the trial its Amended Conclu- When court certified 18,1977, pursuant April this court on Judgment sions of Law and 5,1977, the trial court became divested this court’s order generally, *7 this cause. See any take further action jurisdiction of all Layne v. State 361 N.E.2d motion petitioner’s second carefully we considered have rehearing and find that errors to her petition to correct attached errors, it, to correct fails establish true her first motion clearly erroneous. court was denied. rehearing Petition for
Robertson, Lybrook, J. concur. C.J. and at 368 N.E.2d —Reported Note