Court Opinion

ID: 9712172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:48:08.933627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:10.560221
License: Public Domain

*349Landis, J.
(Concurring Opinion) — I am unable to agree with that portion of the opinion which indicates that a party may not without an order of court take a deposition after the trial has commenced. The statute in unambiguous language states:
“In all actions, depositions may be taken _ by either party, in vacation or term time, at any time after service of summons, ivithout order of court therefor.”1 (Emphasis supplied.)
Moreover, this court held in Wehrs v. The State (1892), 132 Ind. 157, 162, 31 N. E. 779, 781, “.. .whether a cause for taking depositions exists is for the party who seeks to take them just as he determines the necessity for subpoenaing witnesses. . . .” See also: Kark v. Central Greyhound Lines (1949), 119 Ind. App. 303, 85 N. E. 2d 277, to the same effect. Depositions may also be taken after trial when a cause is pending on appeal. Long, Executor v. Straus et al. (1890), 124 Ind. 84, 24 N. E. 664.
However, I do not believe attendance at the taking of a deposition can properly be enforced in a separate court under Burns’ §2-1509, 1946 Repl., [Acts 1881 (Spec. Sess.), ch. 38, §295, p. 240], when such enforcement would conflict with the orderly procedure of the trial of the main action which was then in progress.2 This statute was intended to facilitate the introduction of evidence and expedite the trial of causes, and it should not be construed in such a manner as to *350be disruptive of the trial of the main action by an independent proceeding in a separate court.3 Respondent court accordingly very properly did not see fit here to exercise the jurisdiction it was given by statute to enforce the attendance of witnesses at the deposition. Matters touching the orderly conduct of the trial are, of course, within the sound discretion of the court trying the cause whose action is reviewable on appeal.
I therefore concur in the result of the opinion that the alternative writ of mandamus requiring respondent court to order witnesses to testify at the deposition be vacated.
Note. — Reported in 140 N. E. 2d 217.

. Burns’ Indiana Statutes §2-1506, 1946 Repl. [Acts 1881 (Spec. Sess.), ch. 38, §292, p. 240]

. See:
Marehant v. Olson (1915), 184 Ind. 17, 19, 110 N. E. 200, 201, to the' following: effect:
“When a court acquires jurisdiction of the subject-matter of a cause its power continues to final disposition, to the exclusion of authority to interfere by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. Such rule avoids confusion and needless expense. Boos v. State (1911), *350175 Ind. 389, 391, 94 N. E. 410 [sic, 401]; Gregory v. Perdue (1867), 29 Ind. 66, 69; 7 R. C. L. [Courts] 1066 [sic, 1067], §105.” 14 Am. Jur., Courts, §243, p. 435, 21 C. J. S., Courts, §492, p. 745.

. See:
Scott et al. v. Runner, Assignee, Etc. (1896), 146 Ind. 12, 15, 44 N. E. 755, as follows:
“An eminent author says: ‘The rule is that one court of concurrent jurisdiction has no power to interfere with the judgments or decrees of other courts of the same jurisdiction. . . . And the rule extends to the processes of the court, whether mesne or' final.’ Works on Courts and Jurisdiction, section 17, p. 69. . . . It is easy to see the great confusion and endless trouble and litigation which might ensue from the exercise of such a jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied.)