Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Lewis

59 N.E. 466, 156 Ind. 232, 1901 Ind. LEXIS 38
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 22, 1901
DocketNo. 18,765
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 59 N.E. 466 (Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Lewis, 59 N.E. 466, 156 Ind. 232, 1901 Ind. LEXIS 38 (Ind. 1901).

Opinion

Baker, J.

This is an appeal from an" interlocutory order appointing a receiver of appellant corporation.

Appellant has.filed an affidavit of its president that within a .month, after this appeal was taken .appellant surrendered to the, receiver the possession of certain premises and machinery, to secure the possession of which the appointment of the, receiver was sought. On-this, appellant’s counsel in their brief say: “'Courts ,are engaged in deciding live matters and not moot questions. Where the time has passed wherein, a receivership or an injunction would be of avail, the ¡court, will not award it-.” Counsel conclude from this that the order appealed from should be reversed, If counsel had shown to the trial court, at the hearing of the application for the. appointment of the receiver, that.only a.moot question was involved, the court would undoubtedly have .dismissed the appEcatiom ,But-the-, application was contested. Gn appeal,, the .question is whether the trial court committed error in its ruling. That question must be tried by. the record. But if it is shown, to. the .appellate tribunal that the record contains nothing but a moot question, the appeal'will be dismissed. State v. Board, etc., 153 Ind. 302, and cases there cited. On appellant’s showing, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

Stults, Rec. v. Bank of Linn Grove
176 N.E. 709 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1931)
State, Ex Rel. Holzbog v. Baird
169 N.E. 347 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1930)
Hammond, Whiting & East Chicago Railway Co. v. Kaput
110 N.E. 109 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Ogborn v. City of Newcastle
98 N.E. 869 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1912)
Princeton Coal & Mining Co. v. Gilmore
83 N.E. 500 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1908)
Dunn v. State ex rel. Eakin
71 N.E. 890 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1904)
State ex rel. City of Indianapolis v. Indianapolis Gas Co.
71 N.E. 139 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1904)
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. Simpson
71 N.E. 131 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1904)
Chicago Horseshoe Co. v. Gostlin
66 N.E. 514 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1903)
Salem-Bedford Stone Co. v. Hobbs
63 N.E. 314 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 N.E. 466, 156 Ind. 232, 1901 Ind. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-horseshoe-co-v-lewis-ind-1901.