Gibson v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Gibson v. State

99 N.E. 424, 178 Ind. 315, 1912 Ind. LEXIS 101

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 9, 1912

DocketNo. 22,179

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 99 N.E. 424 (Gibson v. State) 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

Gibson v. State, 99 N.E. 424, 178 Ind. 315, 1912 Ind. LEXIS 101 (Ind. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Monks, J.

Appellant was convicted in the court below of soliciting a bribe to influence his vote as a member of the common council of the city of Gary, on an ordinance pending before that body, in violation of §2378 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, §477.

1. The only punishment fixed by the judgment was imprisonment in the State’s prison. Judgment for costs was rendered against appellant. Prom a judgment of conviction appellant perfected an appeal to this court on March 19, 1912.

The Attorney-General has filed a verified motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that appellant died on July 3, 1912, claiming that appellant’s death abated the appeal. It has been held that the death of an appellant under such circumstances abates the appeal. State v. Martin (1896), 30 Or. 108, 47 Pac. 196; O’Sullivan v. People (1892), 144 Ill. 604, 32 N. E. 192, 20 L. R. A. 143. Even if the judgment appealed from is reversed, there would be no person to try.

2. 3. It has been held by this court that it “cannot give time to the examination of moot questions, the determination of which will serve no useful purpose.” State, ex rel., v. Board, etc. (1899), 153 Ind. 302, 313, 54 N. E. 809, and cases cited; Rowe v. Bateman (1899), 153 Ind. 633, 635, 636, 54 N. E. 1065, 55 N. E. 754; Princeton Coal, etc., Co. v. Gilmore (1908), 170 Ind. 366, 369, 370, 83 N. E. 500, and cases cited. State, ex rel., v. Owens (1910), 174 Ind. 142, 143, 91 N. E. 562; Hood v. McCarthy (1910), 174 Ind. 128, 91 N. E. 501. True there is a judgment for costs (3 Williams, Executors [7th Am. ed., Randolph & Taleott] 240), but an appeal will not be entertained simply to determine a question of costs. Manlove v. [317]*317State (1899), 153 Ind. 80, 53 N. E. 385; State, ex rel., v. Boyd (1909), 172 Ind. 196, 198, 87 N. E. 140, and cases cited; State v. Martin, supra.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is, therefore, sustained. Appeal dismissed.

Note.—Reported in 99 N. E. 424. See, also, under (1) 12 Cyc. 879; (2) 12 Cyc. 1455.

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

Monks, J.

Appellant was convicted in the court below of soliciting a bribe to influence his vote as a member of the common council of the city of Gary, on an ordinance pending before that body, in violation of §2378 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, §477.

1. The only punishment fixed by the judgment was imprisonment in the State’s prison. Judgment for costs was rendered against appellant. Prom a judgment of conviction appellant perfected an appeal to this court on March 19, 1912.

The Attorney-General has filed a verified motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that appellant died on July 3, 1912, claiming that appellant’s death abated the appeal. It has been held that the death of an appellant under such circumstances abates the appeal. State v. Martin (1896), 30 Or. 108, 47 Pac. 196; O’Sullivan v. People (1892), 144 Ill. 604, 32 N. E. 192, 20 L. R. A. 143. Even if the judgment appealed from is reversed, there would be no person to try.

2. 3. It has been held by this court that it “cannot give time to the examination of moot questions, the determination of which will serve no useful purpose.” State, ex rel., v. Board, etc. (1899), 153 Ind. 302, 313, 54 N. E. 809, and cases cited; Rowe v. Bateman (1899), 153 Ind. 633, 635, 636, 54 N. E. 1065, 55 N. E. 754; Princeton Coal, etc., Co. v. Gilmore (1908), 170 Ind. 366, 369, 370, 83 N. E. 500, and cases cited. State, ex rel., v. Owens (1910), 174 Ind. 142, 143, 91 N. E. 562; Hood v. McCarthy (1910), 174 Ind. 128, 91 N. E. 501. True there is a judgment for costs (3 Williams, Executors [7th Am. ed., Randolph & Taleott] 240), but an appeal will not be entertained simply to determine a question of costs. Manlove v. [317]*317State (1899), 153 Ind. 80, 53 N. E. 385; State, ex rel., v. Boyd (1909), 172 Ind. 196, 198, 87 N. E. 140, and cases cited; State v. Martin, supra.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is, therefore, sustained. Appeal dismissed.

Note.—Reported in 99 N. E. 424. See, also, under (1) 12 Cyc. 879; (2) 12 Cyc. 1455.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 N.E. 424, 178 Ind. 315, 1912 Ind. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-state-ind-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack