Noble v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Noble v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.

87 N.E. 696, 43 Ind. App. 430, 1909 Ind. App. LEXIS 61

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 1909

DocketNo. 6,808

StatusPublished

This text of 87 N.E. 696 (Noble v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.) 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

Noble v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co., 87 N.E. 696, 43 Ind. App. 430, 1909 Ind. App. LEXIS 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Watson, C. J.

The appellee appeared specially herein on February 5, 1909, and filed its motion to dismiss this appeal for the following reasons: (1) This court has no jurisdiction of the appellee in this cause. (2) Appellant has not complied with rule thirty-six of this court. (3) The record in this cause presents no question for the decision of this court.

But appellee has not given appellant any notice of this motion, at least no proof of any notice has been made. Rule fifteen of this court requires that notice of motions of this character must be given the appellant. It has been held that the compliance with this rule will be enforced. Dick v. Mullins (1891), 128 Ind. 365; Elliott, App. Proc., §533; Ewbank’s Manual, §199.

The motion to dismiss this appeal is therefore overruled, and the clerk is instructed to tax the costs of said motion against the appellee.

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

Watson, C. J.

The appellee appeared specially herein on February 5, 1909, and filed its motion to dismiss this appeal for the following reasons: (1) This court has no jurisdiction of the appellee in this cause. (2) Appellant has not complied with rule thirty-six of this court. (3) The record in this cause presents no question for the decision of this court.

But appellee has not given appellant any notice of this motion, at least no proof of any notice has been made. Rule fifteen of this court requires that notice of motions of this character must be given the appellant. It has been held that the compliance with this rule will be enforced. Dick v. Mullins (1891), 128 Ind. 365; Elliott, App. Proc., §533; Ewbank’s Manual, §199.

The motion to dismiss this appeal is therefore overruled, and the clerk is instructed to tax the costs of said motion against the appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 N.E. 696, 43 Ind. App. 430, 1909 Ind. App. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noble-v-indianapolis-traction-terminal-co-indctapp-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack