From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kreger v. Bowman

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Nov 2, 1951
101 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)

Opinion

No. 18,219.

Filed November 2, 1951.

1. APPEAL — Appellate Jurisdiction — Decisions Reviewable — Final Judgment Necessary. — 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. p. 607.

2. APPEAL — Appellate Jurisdiction — Decisions Reviewable — Final Judgment Necessary — Overruling of Motion To Strike Claim Against Estate Not Final Judgment. — The overruling of a motion to strike a claim from the files and docket of a decedent's estate is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. p. 607.

From the Kosciusko Circuit Court, Walter Brubaker, Judge.

Lionel Kreger, as Administrator of the estate of Alfred Sisk, deceased, filed a motion to strike from the files and docket of the estate a claim filed by Russell J. and Dorotha Bowman. The motion was overruled and the Administrator attempts to appeal.

Appeal dismissed. By the court in banc.

Graham Eschbach; and Philip J. Harris (of counsel), both of Warsaw, for appellant.

Gollehon Whitted, of Huntington, and Rockhill Lee, of Warsaw, for appellees.


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 1. 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 2. judgment. We have determined not to pass upon this issue.

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 101 N.E.2d 433.


Summaries of

Kreger v. Bowman

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Nov 2, 1951
101 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
Case details for

Kreger v. Bowman

Case Details

Full title:KREGER, ADMINISTRATOR v. BOWMAN ET AL

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Nov 2, 1951

Citations

101 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
101 N.E.2d 433

Citing Cases

Kruzick v. Pelkey, Administrator

In re Moss's Estate v. Lewis (1938), 104 Ind. App. 567, 12 N.E.2d 373, where the trial court had sustained…