Payne v. Peugh

103 N.E. 117, 54 Ind. App. 551, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 135
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 19, 1913
DocketNo. 8,774
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 103 N.E. 117 (Payne v. Peugh) 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
Payne v. Peugh, 103 N.E. 117, 54 Ind. App. 551, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 135 (Ind. 1913).

Opinion

Shea, J.

Injunction suit by appellant against appellee Peugh, a township trustee. The complaint is in two paragraphs, in each of which it is alleged that the trustee was threatening to clean out and repair a public drain, which, it is alleged he could not lawfully do. A number of landowners claiming to be interested in the cleaning of the two drains made application to be made parties defendant to the action. The application was granted and they filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the court sustained. Plaintiff declined to plead further, and the court rendered judgment.

[552]*5521. [551]*551A motion is filed by appellees to dismiss the appeal for [552]*552the reason that since the filing of the record in this case appellant has disposed of all of the lands owned by him, affected by the ditch in question, and the purchasers of the land, by affidavit, show their interest therein; that they are in favor of the work being done, and ask that the appeal be dismissed. “It is well settled that when a party to an appeal transfers or otherwise loses his interest in the subject-matter in controversy, the appeal will’ be dismissed as to him, when the fact is brought to the attention of the appellate tribunal.” Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Grantham (1905), 165 Ind. 279, 282, 75 N. E. 265. See, also, Stauffer v. Salimonie, etc., Co. (1897), 147 Ind. 71, 73, 46 N. E. 342; Elliott, App. Proc. §148.

For the reason that appellant has disposed of his interest in the land affected, the appeal in this case is dismissed.

Note.—Reported in 103 N. E. 117. See, also, 3 Cyc. 188.

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

Related

French v. Bristol-Myers Co.
574 N.E.2d 940 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1991)
Grave v. Kittle
101 N.E.2d 830 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1951)
Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co.
218 P.2d 17 (California Supreme Court, 1950)
Jensen v. Pritchard
90 N.E.2d 518 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1950)
Hetzell v. Morrison
60 N.E.2d 150 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1945)
Fields v. Hahn
57 N.E.2d 955 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1944)
State Ex Rel. 1625 East Washington Realty Co. v. Markey
7 N.E.2d 989 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1937)
Gary Amusement Co. v. Hirsth
198 N.E. 298 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1935)
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Booten
57 F.2d 786 (Eighth Circuit, 1932)
Stults, Rec. v. Bank of Linn Grove
176 N.E. 709 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1931)
Grubb v. Auburn Hotel
176 N.E. 19 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1931)
Union Traction Co. v. City of Muncie
133 N.E. 160 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1921)
Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Milbrat
78 So. 224 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Hammond, Whiting & East Chicago Railway Co. v. Kaput
110 N.E. 109 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Steiert v. Coulter
102 N.E. 113 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 N.E. 117, 54 Ind. App. 551, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-peugh-ind-1913.