Court Opinion

ID: 9520139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:32:00.93914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:35.940944
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
White, J.
The trial court made a long, rambling entry as a preface to its judgment. The majority opinion quotes only that part of the entry which contains the finding for defendant-appellant Albert L. Stanelle, Sr., upon which the judgment in his favor is based. Both appellants’ brief, appel-lees’ brief, and the majority opinion treat that entry as having the effect of a special finding. As the court said in Lawson v. Hilgenberg (1881), 77 Ind. 221, 222:
“In treating the statement of facts contained in the judgment as equivalent to a special finding, counsel are in error. *280The statement of facts in a general finding does not transform it into a special finding.”
I find no Indiana case which finds fault with that statement and all seem to follow it. There is not, however, complete agreement as to what effect, if any, should be given to extraneous matter included in the entry of a general finding. The Lawson case appears to have disregarded it, but in Levy v. Chittenden (1889), 120 Ind. 37, 42, 22 N.E. 92, the court reversed a judgment for the plaintiff because “the facts found fail to show a cause of action such as is stated in the complaint, the plaintiff cannot recover.” Levy added: “A finding which is not in the technical sense of this code a special finding, will not be disregarded because it specifically states the facts found, and is not in general terms a finding for the plaintiff or defendant.”
The finding at bar is distinguishable from the Levy finding in that it is “in general terms a finding for the . . . defendant” with what seems to me to be an explanatory statement added. The finding at bar seems to me to be analogous to that in Over v. Dehne (1905), 38 Ind. App. 427, 435, 75 N.E. 664, 667, 76 N.E. 883, of which the court said:
“As above indicated, the court made a general finding, in favor of appellee, fixing his damages at $247. The court after announcing its finding for said amount, itemized the damages as follows: $50 for the first fire; $125 for the second fire; and $72 for the depreciation of the rental value of appellee’s property. The court was not required to itemize the amount of damages, and in no sense can this itemized statement, as it appears in the record, be considered as a special finding, and it will therefore be treated as a general finding. The several items of damages, as designated by the court, will be considered as mere surplusage. The statement of facts in a general finding does not transform it into a special finding. Lawson v. Hilgenberg (1881), 77 Ind. 221.
“It is contended by the appellant that the evidence is insufficient to support the special findings as to the amount of damages. Under the rule just stated, it is unnecessary to consider this question further, for two reasons: (1) Because the finding is general, and the amount fixed in the general finding is of controlling influence; . . .”
*281Here I believe it would be wise to follow Over v. Dehne, supra, and treat everything in the recital as surplusage except the general finding for appellee. To do so obviates the necessity of arguing whether the trial court found that appellant had “actual knowledge” or merely “constructive notice” of the true facts.
The trial court, of course, made no express finding either way. What the court found was “sufficient notice.” That we are now able to read “sufficient notice” as “actual notice”, after appellants’ counsel has read it as “constructive notice”, gives us no license to attribute insincerity to him by calling his argument an “obfuscating semantic gambol”.
I would disregard the surplusage in this general finding for the defendant, and would affirm the judgment with an opinion pointing out that the evidence fails to pass the test necessary for reversal of a judgment based on a negative finding. See Pokraka v. Lummus (1952), 230 Ind. 523, 532, 104 N.E.2d 669.
Note. — Reported at 311 N.E.2d 626.