Perry v. Botkin
This text of 42 N.E. 964 (Perry v. Botkin) 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.
Opinion
Appellee recovered a judgment against appellant and one Swindell. This appeal is taken by appellant alone, Swindell, his co-defendant being made an appellee. Swindell, so far as we are able to learn from the record, has taken no part whatever in the cause in this court. Appellee now moves to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that Swindell was a necessary party appellant and should have been made such. The adjudications upon this question settle it beyond peradventure. Gregory v. Smith, 139 Ind. 48; Wood v. Clites, 140 Ind. 472; Vordemark v. [84]*84Wilkinson, 142 Ind. 142; Ledbetter v. Winchell, 142 Ind. 109; Walsh v. Brockway, 13 Ind. App. 70; Midland R. W. Co. v. St. Clair, 144 Ind. 363; Shuman v. Collis, 144 Ind. 333.
Under these authorities, we are compelled W sustain the motion to dismiss.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
42 N.E. 964, 15 Ind. App. 83, 1896 Ind. App. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-botkin-indctapp-1896.