Court Opinion

ID: 9526372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:16:19.017187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:33.565453
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Crumpacker, J.
Upon consideration of the appellants’ petition for a rehearing we have concluded to withdraw our holding that “Exhibit E” was inadmissible as evidence because it shows no judgment upon the finding that “Lucy Roll is the wife of said J. L. Roll, deceased,” and substitute the following:
When a judgment is offered not merely as evidence of its own existence but as proof of some fact or facts upon the supposed existence of which the judgment was founded, the general rule is that it is not binding upon anyone except the parties thereto, those who might legally have become parties and those in privity with them. Lasher, Administratrix *368v. Gerlach (1940), 107 Ind. App. 572, 23 N. E. 2d 296. It must be borne in mind that the appellant is seeking to compel the appellee Inland Steel Company to pay her compensation, as the natural guardian of and for the benefit of the alleged step-children of J. L. Roll, deceased, claimed to be his dependents at the time of his death. While said appellee does not deny liability for the death of said J. L. Roll it does not admit that compensation for said death is owing to the appellant’s wards. In fact it objected to proof of that issue through a consideration of “Exhibit E” which, as the sole defendant in these proceedings, it had the right to do. It was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the judgment of which “Exhibit E” is a certified copy nor might it have legally become a party thereto nor is it in privity with those who were parties to those proceedings or might have become so. It is our considered opinion that the Industrial Board committed no error in striking “Exhibit E” from the record.
Petition for rehearing overruled.
Note. — Reported in 146 N. E. 2d 553.
Rehearing denied 147 N. E. 2d 557.