Morton v. Gaffield

Indiana Court of Appeals

Morton v. Gaffield

95 N.E. 593, 48 Ind. App. 172, 1911 Ind. App. LEXIS 131

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 27, 1911

DocketNo. 7,695

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 N.E. 593 (Morton v. Gaffield) 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

Morton v. Gaffield, 95 N.E. 593, 48 Ind. App. 172, 1911 Ind. App. LEXIS 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hottel, J.

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that appellant had failed to make all the parties against whom judgment was rendered parties to this appeal.

The judgment herein was rendered against appellant, James T. Morton, for $120, and against George A. Williams, a garnishee eodefendant. Appellant has not joined with him, in his appeal, his said garnishee codefendant, and has not named him in his assignment of errors.

This is a term-time appeal, perfected, as such, under §679 Burns 1908, §638 R. S. 1881. Section 675 Burns 1908, Acts 1895 p. 179, §1, provides that “a part of any number of coparties against whom a judgment has been taken” may appeal from such judgment to the Supreme or Appellate Court without making the “coparties not appealing, parties to the appeal, and it shall not be necessary to name them as appellants or appellees in the assignment of errors.” See Keiser v. Mills (1904), 162 Ind. 366; Gunn v. Haworth [173]*173(1902), 159 Ind. 419; Baltes Land, etc., Co. v. Sutton (1903), 32 Ind. App. 14.

The eases cited and relied on by appellee apply to appeals other than term-time appeals.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.

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

Hottel, J.

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, for the reason that appellant had failed to make all the parties against whom judgment was rendered parties to this appeal.

The judgment herein was rendered against appellant, James T. Morton, for $120, and against George A. Williams, a garnishee eodefendant. Appellant has not joined with him, in his appeal, his said garnishee codefendant, and has not named him in his assignment of errors.

This is a term-time appeal, perfected, as such, under §679 Burns 1908, §638 R. S. 1881. Section 675 Burns 1908, Acts 1895 p. 179, §1, provides that “a part of any number of coparties against whom a judgment has been taken” may appeal from such judgment to the Supreme or Appellate Court without making the “coparties not appealing, parties to the appeal, and it shall not be necessary to name them as appellants or appellees in the assignment of errors.” See Keiser v. Mills (1904), 162 Ind. 366; Gunn v. Haworth [173]*173(1902), 159 Ind. 419; Baltes Land, etc., Co. v. Sutton (1903), 32 Ind. App. 14.

The eases cited and relied on by appellee apply to appeals other than term-time appeals.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.E. 593, 48 Ind. App. 172, 1911 Ind. App. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morton-v-gaffield-indctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack