Noonan v. Bell

Indiana Supreme Court

Noonan v. Bell

64 N.E. 909, 159 Ind. 329, 1902 Ind. LEXIS 37

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1902

DocketNo. 19,867

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 64 N.E. 909 (Noonan v. Bell) 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

Noonan v. Bell, 64 N.E. 909, 159 Ind. 329, 1902 Ind. LEXIS 37 (Ind. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Gillett, J.

— This action was instituted by appellant to recover damages from appellees. The latter, by their respective counsel, severally demurred to the amended complaint for want of facts. After setting out the several demurrers mentioned, the record contains the following entry: “And the court, after being fully advised in the premises, sustains the separate demurrer of each defendant, to which ruling of the court the plaintiff at the time excepts.”

Each demurrer presented the question as to the sufficiency of the amended complaint as against the demurring defendant. The entry therefore involves two rulings. An exception must be directed against a designated ruling. It is not competent to reserve exceptions in gross. City of South Bend v. Turner, 156 Ind. 418, 54 L. R. A. 396, 83 Am. St. 200; Walter v. Walter, 117 Ind. 247; Johnson v. McCulloch, 89 Ind. 270; Leyner v. State, 8 Ind. 490; Wilson v. Wolfer, 8 Ind. 398; Elliott, App. Proc., §§787, 789. The assignments of error are all predicated on said rulings on demurrer,' and it therefore follows that there is no basis for an inquiry into the correctness of the judgment below.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gillett, J.

— This action was instituted by appellant to recover damages from appellees. The latter, by their respective counsel, severally demurred to the amended complaint for want of facts. After setting out the several demurrers mentioned, the record contains the following entry: “And the court, after being fully advised in the premises, sustains the separate demurrer of each defendant, to which ruling of the court the plaintiff at the time excepts.”

Each demurrer presented the question as to the sufficiency of the amended complaint as against the demurring defendant. The entry therefore involves two rulings. An exception must be directed against a designated ruling. It is not competent to reserve exceptions in gross. City of South Bend v. Turner, 156 Ind. 418, 54 L. R. A. 396, 83 Am. St. 200; Walter v. Walter, 117 Ind. 247; Johnson v. McCulloch, 89 Ind. 270; Leyner v. State, 8 Ind. 490; Wilson v. Wolfer, 8 Ind. 398; Elliott, App. Proc., §§787, 789. The assignments of error are all predicated on said rulings on demurrer,' and it therefore follows that there is no basis for an inquiry into the correctness of the judgment below.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 N.E. 909, 159 Ind. 329, 1902 Ind. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noonan-v-bell-ind-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack