Crumpacker v. Manhattan Lumber Co.

Indiana Supreme Court

Crumpacker v. Manhattan Lumber Co.

112 N.E. 525, 185 Ind. 493, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 59

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 10, 1916

DocketNo. 22,681

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 112 N.E. 525 (Crumpacker v. Manhattan Lumber Co.) 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

Crumpacker v. Manhattan Lumber Co., 112 N.E. 525, 185 Ind. 493, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 59 (Ind. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Erwin, J.

— The appellee, Manhattan Lumber Company, brought its suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and for a personal judgment against appellants. A number of other parties were made defendants to the original complaint, including Timothy W. Englehart .and Warren J. Sheets. All the parties to the original complaint filed answers and a large number, including appellants, filed cross-complaints, making appellee Manhattan Lumber Company and the codefendants to the original complaints defendants to the cross-complaints. Of the- parties defendants, so made parties to the cross-complaints, were Englehart and Sheets aforementioned. The court trying the case found for the defendants Englehart and Sheets against the plaintiff (appellees) on its complaint and appellants on their cross-complaint, and rendered judgment accordingly. In the assignment of errors in this court neither Englehart nor Sheets are made parties to this appeal either as appellants or appellees, and are not before this court in this proceeding.

1. 2. The assignment of errors is the complaint in this court, and the only parties adverse to appellants in the judgment appealed from, over whom - jurisdiction is acquired, are those named therein as appellees. If such adverse parties to the appeal are not made appellees in this court, the court has no power to reverse the judgment, because this court has no power to disturb the judgment without changing it as to all in whose favor it was rendered and, as this court has no power to disturb the judgment as to those who -are not before the court, it can not disturb it at all. Lauster v. Meyers (1908), 170 Ind. 548, and cases cited on page 549, 84 N. E. 1087.

[495]*495For failure to make Englehart and Sheets-parties appellees, the judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 112 N. E. 525.

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

Erwin, J.

— The appellee, Manhattan Lumber Company, brought its suit to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and for a personal judgment against appellants. A number of other parties were made defendants to the original complaint, including Timothy W. Englehart .and Warren J. Sheets. All the parties to the original complaint filed answers and a large number, including appellants, filed cross-complaints, making appellee Manhattan Lumber Company and the codefendants to the original complaints defendants to the cross-complaints. Of the- parties defendants, so made parties to the cross-complaints, were Englehart and Sheets aforementioned. The court trying the case found for the defendants Englehart and Sheets against the plaintiff (appellees) on its complaint and appellants on their cross-complaint, and rendered judgment accordingly. In the assignment of errors in this court neither Englehart nor Sheets are made parties to this appeal either as appellants or appellees, and are not before this court in this proceeding.

1. 2. The assignment of errors is the complaint in this court, and the only parties adverse to appellants in the judgment appealed from, over whom - jurisdiction is acquired, are those named therein as appellees. If such adverse parties to the appeal are not made appellees in this court, the court has no power to reverse the judgment, because this court has no power to disturb the judgment without changing it as to all in whose favor it was rendered and, as this court has no power to disturb the judgment as to those who -are not before the court, it can not disturb it at all. Lauster v. Meyers (1908), 170 Ind. 548, and cases cited on page 549, 84 N. E. 1087.

[495]*495For failure to make Englehart and Sheets-parties appellees, the judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 112 N. E. 525.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.E. 525, 185 Ind. 493, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crumpacker-v-manhattan-lumber-co-ind-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack