Duncan v. Alderson

Indiana Court of Appeals

Duncan v. Alderson

92 N.E. 5, 46 Ind. App. 136, 1910 Ind. App. LEXIS 60

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1910

DocketNo. 7,562

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 N.E. 5 (Duncan v. Alderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duncan v. Alderson, 92 N.E. 5, 46 Ind. App. 136, 1910 Ind. App. LEXIS 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Comstock, C. J.

Appellees move to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that the assignment of errors does not comply -with rule six of this court, in this: That the full name of each party to the proceeding affected by the appeal is not set out in the assignment of errors.

The names of two remonstrators are set out in the assignment, and it appears from the record that there were others. No excuse is shown for the failure to comply with the rule. Under the decisions, the motion must he sustained. Ewbank’s Manual §§13, 120, 126, 146, 226; Rule VI of the Supreme and Appellate Courts; Barnett v. Bromley Mfg. Co. (1898), 149 Ind. 606; McClure v. Shelburn Coal Co. (1897), 147 Ind. 119; Big Four Bldg., etc., Assn. v. Olcott (1896), 146 Ind. 176; Hutts v. Martin (1895), 141 Ind. 701; Gourley v. Embree (1894), 137 Ind. 82; City of South Bend v. Thompson (1898), 19 Ind. App. 19; State v. Hodgin (1894), 139 Ind. 498.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Comstock, C. J.

Appellees move to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that the assignment of errors does not comply -with rule six of this court, in this: That the full name of each party to the proceeding affected by the appeal is not set out in the assignment of errors.

The names of two remonstrators are set out in the assignment, and it appears from the record that there were others. No excuse is shown for the failure to comply with the rule. Under the decisions, the motion must he sustained. Ewbank’s Manual §§13, 120, 126, 146, 226; Rule VI of the Supreme and Appellate Courts; Barnett v. Bromley Mfg. Co. (1898), 149 Ind. 606; McClure v. Shelburn Coal Co. (1897), 147 Ind. 119; Big Four Bldg., etc., Assn. v. Olcott (1896), 146 Ind. 176; Hutts v. Martin (1895), 141 Ind. 701; Gourley v. Embree (1894), 137 Ind. 82; City of South Bend v. Thompson (1898), 19 Ind. App. 19; State v. Hodgin (1894), 139 Ind. 498.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.E. 5, 46 Ind. App. 136, 1910 Ind. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-alderson-indctapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack