Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Caven

58 Ind. 328
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 Ind. 328 (Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Caven) 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
Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. Caven, 58 Ind. 328 (Ind. 1877).

Opinion

Niblack, J.

John Caven, the appellee, sued The Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Company, as the maker, and William J. II. Robinson, Jacob C. Geisendorff, Christian E. Geisendorff, Isaac Thalman and William W. Leathers,' as endorsers, in the court below, on a promissory note dated July 23d, 1872, and payable at Harrison’s Bank, of Indianapolis, ninety days after date, for the sum of four thousand dollars.

Robinson made default. The Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Company and Leathers each answered separately, and the remaining defendants answered together. Issues were formed on these answers, involving, amongst other things, questions affecting the consideration of the note, and the relations of the several parties to the note, as between themselves.

These issues were tried by a jury, resulting in a general verdict for the plaintiff, accompanied by answers to certain interrogatories propounded to the jury under the direction of the court, and in a judgment against all the defendants.

The Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Company, together with the Geisendorffs and the said Thalman and Leathers, have appealed to this court, without joining their codefendant, Robinson, in the appeal, and without serving notice of the appeal upon him. His name does [329]*329not- anywhere appear in the appellate proceedings in this court.

Eor these reasons,- the appellee objects that the appeal has not been perfected, and that the cause is not properly in this court for a hearing on its merits.

The objection is well taken, and the appeal will have to be dismissed. 2 R. S. 1876, p. 239, sec. 551; Emmert v. Darnall, ante, p. 141.

The appeal is dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.

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

Related

Hammon v. Sexton
69 Ind. 37 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)
Spahr v. Dickson
67 Ind. 394 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 Ind. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indianapolis-piano-manufacturing-co-v-caven-ind-1877.