Kroeger Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Williams

Indiana Supreme Court

Kroeger Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Williams

47 N.E.2d 612, 221 Ind. 299, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 186

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 30, 1943

DocketNo. 27,849.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 47 N.E.2d 612 (Kroeger Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Williams) 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

Kroeger Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Williams, 47 N.E.2d 612, 221 Ind. 299, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 186 (Ind. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

*300 Richman, C. J.

This appeal is from a judgment for $60. The only assigned error properly presented for consideration is the overruling of appellants’ demurrer for want of facts to appellees’ complaint. It charges delivery by appellees of a bundle containing certain linen and clothing owned by them of the value of $40.81 to appellant, Kroeger Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., to be laundered, that said appellant turned the same over to the other appellant, that possession has been demanded of both appellants, “that said property is being held by both of said laundrcis, who have refused and still refuse to return same, but have taken and appropriated the same to their own use” to appellees’ damage in the sum of $250. While the complaint is not a model, we think it sufficiently charges a joint conversion by appellants. The demurrer was properly overruled. Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Thatcher (1936), 104 Ind. App. 14, 4 N. E. (2d) 574.

The only other error assigned requires consideration of the evidence which is not in the record because the bill of exceptions containing same was filed after the term and more than thirty days after the entry of judgment, without procuring extension of time as required by § 4-2525, Burns’ 1933, § 1740, Baldwin’s 1934.

The judgment is affirmed with ten (10%) per cent penalty and the cause is remanded for execution in accordance with § 2-3233, Burns’ 1933, § 508, Baldwin’s 1934.

Note.—Reported in 47 N. E. (2d) 612.

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

*300 Richman, C. J.

This appeal is from a judgment for $60. The only assigned error properly presented for consideration is the overruling of appellants’ demurrer for want of facts to appellees’ complaint. It charges delivery by appellees of a bundle containing certain linen and clothing owned by them of the value of $40.81 to appellant, Kroeger Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., to be laundered, that said appellant turned the same over to the other appellant, that possession has been demanded of both appellants, “that said property is being held by both of said laundrcis, who have refused and still refuse to return same, but have taken and appropriated the same to their own use” to appellees’ damage in the sum of $250. While the complaint is not a model, we think it sufficiently charges a joint conversion by appellants. The demurrer was properly overruled. Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Thatcher (1936), 104 Ind. App. 14, 4 N. E. (2d) 574.

The only other error assigned requires consideration of the evidence which is not in the record because the bill of exceptions containing same was filed after the term and more than thirty days after the entry of judgment, without procuring extension of time as required by § 4-2525, Burns’ 1933, § 1740, Baldwin’s 1934.

The judgment is affirmed with ten (10%) per cent penalty and the cause is remanded for execution in accordance with § 2-3233, Burns’ 1933, § 508, Baldwin’s 1934.

Note.—Reported in 47 N. E. (2d) 612.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.E.2d 612, 221 Ind. 299, 1943 Ind. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kroeger-laundry-dry-cleaners-inc-v-williams-ind-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack