Kirby v. Holmes

6 Ind. 33
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 6 Ind. 33 (Kirby v. Holmes) 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
Kirby v. Holmes, 6 Ind. 33 (Ind. 1854).

Opinion

Stuart, J.

The main facts of this case will be found in the opinion delivered when it was here on appeal from the Decatur Probate Court, May term, 1850. 2 Ind. R. 197.

J. S. Scobey, for the appellants. J. Hyman, for the appellees.

In the Probate Court the parties all appeared to the suit. After it was reversed and remanded for a new assessment of damages, the Common Pleas issued process for the defendants. But this was superfluous. The parties were still in Court as they stood at the time the damages were erroneously assessed. The statute pointing out when a cause reversed and remanded shall stand for trial, does not seem susceptible of any other construction. R. S. 1843, p. 732, s. 321.

At the re-assessment of damages, the record notices the appearance by attorney of the appellants, Kirby and Stewart, but is silent as to the other defendants. The omission to default the infant defendants, and take judgment against them for want of a plea, is a mere defect in form, and can not be assigned for error. 2 Ind. R. 197.

As to the adult defendants there was a plea in bar filed and issue joined. They could not be defaulted. Whether they were called and failed to appear is not shown. In such case the plaintiffs could assess the damages in the same manner as if the defendants had all appeared and defended the cause. Harris v. The Muskingum Manufacturing Company, 4 Blackf. 267, and the authorities cited. And the judgment against the “defendants” will be presumed to be against all the defendants in the cause.

We think the jury was impanneled substantially in accordance with the second clause of section 17, of chapter 39, R. S. 1843.

The appeal is taken by Kirby and Stewart alone. All the defendants should have joined, or there should have been a summons and severance. Kain v. Gradon, 6 Blackf. 138

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

Related

Buchanan v. Morris
151 N.E. 385 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1926)
Firestone v. Firestone
78 Ind. 534 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Terrell v. State ex rel. Root
68 Ind. 155 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)
Koerner v. Baldwin
39 Ind. 474 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Harlan v. Watson
39 Ind. 393 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Anderson v. Sloan
1 Colo. 484 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1872)
Wickham v. Hess
38 Ind. 183 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
Erwine v. Scotten
38 Ind. 289 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
McClure v. Taylor
38 Ind. 427 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ind. 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirby-v-holmes-ind-1854.