Dunn v. Estate of Evans

Indiana Court of Appeals

Dunn v. Estate of Evans

63 N.E. 36, 28 Ind. App. 447, 1902 Ind. App. LEXIS 52

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 1902

DocketNo. 3,520

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 63 N.E. 36 (Dunn v. Estate of Evans) 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

Dunn v. Estate of Evans, 63 N.E. 36, 28 Ind. App. 447, 1902 Ind. App. LEXIS 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Henley, J.

Appellant’s action was in the nature of a claim against the estate of Evan Evans, deceased, for services rendered in caring for decedent. On trial there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the estate. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, in which it is made one of the reasons for dismissal that the proper parties appellees are not named and set out in the assignment of errors in this, that the administrators of the estate of Evan Evans, to wit, John B. Evans, James W. Evans and Ashury Evans should be named as the appellees. ¥e think the objection well taken.

It was said in the case of the Estate of Peden v. Noland, 45 Ind. 354: “The estate of Joseph Peden, deceased, is not the full name of any natural or artificial party or person. We can not render judgment against an estate but we may against an administrator or executor of an estate”. Also, in the case of the Estate of Wells v. Wells, 71 Ind. 509, the court said: “The estate of a dead man can not be a party to a suit without some representative; and a suit should be carried on in the name of the representative as such”. To the same effect also was the case of Estate of Thomas v. Service, 90 Ind. 128.

The rule of this court requiring that the assignment of errors shall contain the full name of the parties so that pi*ocess when necessary shall issue accordingly could not be more flagrantly violated than it has been in this case.

For failure to comply with the rule, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Henley, J.

Appellant’s action was in the nature of a claim against the estate of Evan Evans, deceased, for services rendered in caring for decedent. On trial there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the estate. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, in which it is made one of the reasons for dismissal that the proper parties appellees are not named and set out in the assignment of errors in this, that the administrators of the estate of Evan Evans, to wit, John B. Evans, James W. Evans and Ashury Evans should be named as the appellees. ¥e think the objection well taken.

It was said in the case of the Estate of Peden v. Noland, 45 Ind. 354: “The estate of Joseph Peden, deceased, is not the full name of any natural or artificial party or person. We can not render judgment against an estate but we may against an administrator or executor of an estate”. Also, in the case of the Estate of Wells v. Wells, 71 Ind. 509, the court said: “The estate of a dead man can not be a party to a suit without some representative; and a suit should be carried on in the name of the representative as such”. To the same effect also was the case of Estate of Thomas v. Service, 90 Ind. 128.

The rule of this court requiring that the assignment of errors shall contain the full name of the parties so that pi*ocess when necessary shall issue accordingly could not be more flagrantly violated than it has been in this case.

For failure to comply with the rule, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.E. 36, 28 Ind. App. 447, 1902 Ind. App. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-estate-of-evans-indctapp-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack