Bonebrake v. Ætna Life Insurance

41 P. 67, 3 Kan. App. 708, 1895 Kan. App. LEXIS 298
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedJuly 6, 1895
DocketNo. 30
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 41 P. 67 (Bonebrake v. Ætna Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bonebrake v. Ætna Life Insurance, 41 P. 67, 3 Kan. App. 708, 1895 Kan. App. LEXIS 298 (kanctapp 1895).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garver, J.:

The plaintiffs in error were sureties upon a bond given by one M. P. Abbott to defendant in error, conditioned for the faithful performance by the said Abbott of his duties as general state agent in Kansas for said insurance company. In an action brought on the bond against the principal and sureties, for alleged breaches thereof, trial was had in the district court of Dickinson county and a joint judgment for $925 rendered against M. P. Abbott as principal and the plaintiffs in error as his sureties. This [709]*709proceeding in error to reverse such judgment is brought by the sureties alone, the said M. P. Abbott not being made a party in this court.

Objection is made by defendant in error, in the brief and on oral argument, to a consideration of the errors assigned, for the reason that M. P. Abbott is a necessary party to this proceeding before any reversal of the judgment can be had. We think this objection is well founded. The rule is well settled, and is of universal application, that all the parties to a joint judgment must be made parties to a petition in error, and a failure in this respect is fatal for the appealing party. (McPherson v. Storch, 49 Kan. 313, and cases cited; Masterson v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 416 ; Simpson v. Greeley, 20 id. 152, 157.)

Notwithstanding this objection, we have examined the errors assigned, and are of the opinion that no reversible error was committed. The case will be dismissed.

All the Judges concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall
1914 OK 113 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Hughes v. Rhodes
1909 OK 276 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Brown v. Yates
1909 OK 154 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Strange v. Crismon
1908 OK 262 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Goodwin v. Wyeth Hardware Manufacturing Co.
62 P. 11 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1900)
Pratt v. First National Bank
53 P. 891 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1898)
Richardson v. Great Western Manufacturing Co.
43 P. 809 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 P. 67, 3 Kan. App. 708, 1895 Kan. App. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonebrake-v-tna-life-insurance-kanctapp-1895.