Everett v. Fouts

Indiana Court of Appeals

Everett v. Fouts

60 N.E. 454, 26 Ind. App. 658, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 324

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 1901

DocketNo. 3,791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 N.E. 454 (Everett v. Fouts) 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

Everett v. Fouts, 60 N.E. 454, 26 Ind. App. 658, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Henley, C. J.

This was a vacation appeal. Appellant did not make the coparties to the judgment from which this appeal is taken co-appellants. This was necessary. In the case of Owen v. Dresback, 154 Ind. 392, the Supreme Court said: “In McKee v. Root, 153 Ind. 314, this court said: ‘It is settled law that to give this court jurisdiction of this appeal, the same being a vacation, and not a term-time appeal, appellants should have made all their coparties to the judgment co-appellants with them in this court, and for their failure to do so the appeal must be dismissed.’ This principle is supported by the following authorities: Brown [659]*659v. Trexler, 132 Ind; 106; Gourley v. Embree, 137 Ind. 82; Gregory v. Smith, 139 Ind. 48; State v. Hodgin, 139 Ind. 498; Benbow v. Garrard, 139 Ind. 571; Wood v. Clites, 140 Ind. 472; Inman v. Vogel, 141 Ind. 138; Vordermark v. Wilkinson, 142 Ind. 142; Denke-Walter v. Loeper, 142 Ind. 657; Lee v. Mozingo, 143 Ind. 667; Shuman v. Cottis, 144 Ind. 333; Midland R. Co. v. St. Clair, 144 Ind. 363; Roach v. Baker, 145 Ind. 330; Stults v. Gibler, 146 Ind. 501; Abshire v. Williamson, 149 Ind. 248; Grist v. Wayne, etc., Assn., 151 Ind. 245; Michigan, etc., Ins. Co. v. Frankel, 151 Ind. 534; Ewbank’s Manual, §146.”

Appeal dismissed.

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

Henley, C. J.

This was a vacation appeal. Appellant did not make the coparties to the judgment from which this appeal is taken co-appellants. This was necessary. In the case of Owen v. Dresback, 154 Ind. 392, the Supreme Court said: “In McKee v. Root, 153 Ind. 314, this court said: ‘It is settled law that to give this court jurisdiction of this appeal, the same being a vacation, and not a term-time appeal, appellants should have made all their coparties to the judgment co-appellants with them in this court, and for their failure to do so the appeal must be dismissed.’ This principle is supported by the following authorities: Brown [659]*659v. Trexler, 132 Ind; 106; Gourley v. Embree, 137 Ind. 82; Gregory v. Smith, 139 Ind. 48; State v. Hodgin, 139 Ind. 498; Benbow v. Garrard, 139 Ind. 571; Wood v. Clites, 140 Ind. 472; Inman v. Vogel, 141 Ind. 138; Vordermark v. Wilkinson, 142 Ind. 142; Denke-Walter v. Loeper, 142 Ind. 657; Lee v. Mozingo, 143 Ind. 667; Shuman v. Cottis, 144 Ind. 333; Midland R. Co. v. St. Clair, 144 Ind. 363; Roach v. Baker, 145 Ind. 330; Stults v. Gibler, 146 Ind. 501; Abshire v. Williamson, 149 Ind. 248; Grist v. Wayne, etc., Assn., 151 Ind. 245; Michigan, etc., Ins. Co. v. Frankel, 151 Ind. 534; Ewbank’s Manual, §146.”

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.E. 454, 26 Ind. App. 658, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-fouts-indctapp-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack