Douglay v. Davis

45 Ind. 493
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 45 Ind. 493 (Douglay v. Davis) 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
Douglay v. Davis, 45 Ind. 493 (Ind. 1873).

Opinion

Downey, C. J.

In 1856, Davis Cotes, administrator of •the estate of R. Montgomery Davis, deceased, with the will -annexed, commenced a suit in the Allen Circuit Court •against William Lockhead, or the unknown heirs of William Lockhead, deceased, Catherine Davis, Arthur T. Davis, Theodore M. Davis, Gertrude M. Davis, Israel R. Whitney, Daniel R. Whitney, and Joseph Douglay, to enforce the execution and delivery of a deed for certain real estate, etc., and there was judgment for the plaintiff. On the 30th day of December, 186$, said Gertrude M. Davis filed her complaint In this action, making defendants thereto the said Davis 'Cotes, William Lockhead, the unknown heirs of William Lockhead, Catherine Davis, Arthur T. Davis, Theodore M. Davis, Israel R. Whitney, Daniel R. Whitney, and Joseph '.Douglay, to review the said judgment. '

Upon service o-f summons on Joseph Douglay only, without notice of' any kind to the other parties, the court ren•dered judgment reversing the former judgment. Among ■other errors, it is alleged by the appellant that the court •erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff below.

Counsel discuss very important and intricate questions, •which are supposed to be involved in the case. But upon these questions the other parties to the action ought to have ;a chance to be heard, not only in this court, but also in the •court below.

' “As a general rule, a bill of review ought to have the same parties that were to the proceeding sought to be reversed; •that is, the same parties should be before the court,” etc. Sloan v. Whiteman, 6 Ind. 434. The necessary parties were •made in this case, but the record shows that none of them,, except the appellant, were brought before the court. We -think that, without deciding the questions discussed bycoun.sel, the judgment ought to be reversed, that the other parities may be notified and have an opportunity to be heard...

[495]*495Opinion filed November term, 1873 ; petition for a rehearing overruled May term, 1874.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Worden, J., was absent.

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

Related

Brokaw v. Brokaw
192 N.E. 728 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1934)
Kirberg v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
30 S.W.2d 663 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Rothschild Bros. Hat Co. v. Lotief
3 S.W.2d 497 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Hare v. Fort Smith & Western Railroad
148 S.W. 1038 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1912)
Barnett v. Barnett
9 N.M. 205 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1897)
Bozeman v. Cale
35 N.E. 828 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Evansville & Richmond Railroad v. Maddux
33 N.E. 345 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Smith v. Baldwin
52 N.W. 495 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1892)
Fishburne v. Ferguson
7 S.E. 361 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1888)
Wells v. Edmison
22 N.W. 497 (Supreme Court of Dakota, 1885)
Tidwell v. Witherspoon
21 Fla. 359 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1885)
Concannon v. Noble
96 Ind. 326 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Nichols v. Dibrell
61 Tex. 539 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)
Leaman v. Sample
91 Ind. 236 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 Ind. 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglay-v-davis-ind-1873.