Court Opinion

ID: 9741107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:49:37.000888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.324062
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Jackson, J.
Relator has filed herein his petition for a rehearing in this cause alleging:
“1. This Court decided only that “Farm and Home Agency, Inc., does not make insurance within the purview of Burns’, Section 39-5023, no such question was presented in this Court or the Respondent trial court.
“2. Two questions arose on Realtor’s record in this case:
“(a) Does the alleged derivative suit by shareholders for a receiver and the motion to produce records (Exhibits A and C to petition for writ) constitute an interference with the business of Farm and Home Insurance Company so as to bring such an action within the prohibition of Burns’ 39-5023 and thus deprive Respondent of jurisdiction?
“(b) Does the prayer (rhetorical paragraph 1) in a derivative suit by shareholders for an accounting of the profits or losses of Farm and *28Home Insurance Company bring such suit within Burns’ 39-5023 so as to deprive Eespondent of jurisdiction when said unambiguous statute clearly provides in part that no order, judgment or decree providing for an accounting or enjoining, restraining or interfering with the operation of the business of an insurance company shall be made or granted, except upon application of the Department of Insurance?”
The relator is in error as regards proposition one as stated in his petition for rehearing, as of necessity that question was one of the determinable issues under the very statute on which relator relied, Acts 1935, ch. 162, §270a, p. 588, being §39-5023, Burns’ 1952 Eeplacement. The relator in its brief admits that it does not make insurance and therefore is not an insurance company.
Relator, at page five of its brief in support of application for rehearing, sets out that Article 7, Section 5, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana, requires this court to give a statement and decision in writing on questions presented in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of the application for rehearing. The law on this point is very clear, as was decided by this court shortly after the adoption of our present Constitution. The Supreme Court held that Article 7, Section 5, referred only to such questions arising in the record and the decision of which was necessary to the final determination of the cause in the Appellate or Supreme Courts.
“. . . It has been the frequent practice of the Court, in cases where a single point would put an end to a case, to decide that point and no other.” Willets v. Ridgeway (1857), 9 Ind. 367, 370;
“Many questions are presented by the record in almost every appeal taken to the Supreme *29or Appellate Courts that are not considered or decided by the court, for the reason that their consideration and decision are unnecessary to' the determination of the appeal.” Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Taylor (1906), 39 Ind. App. 592, 596, 80 N. E. 436.
For the reasons stated it is unnecessary for this court to decide the issues presented in paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of relator’s application for rehearing.
We further point out that Farm and Home Insurance Company is not a party to this action.
Finally, we can not presume that a receiver of Farm and Home Agency, Inc., if appointed, would interfere with the operation of Farm and Home Insurance Company.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Landis, C. J., Bobbitt, Achor and Arterburn, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 174 N. E. 2d 408. Rehearing denied 175 N. E. 2d 423.