Ryder v. Shea

Indiana Supreme Court

Ryder v. Shea

103 N.E. 411, 180 Ind. 574, 1913 Ind. LEXIS 153

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 11, 1913

DocketNo. 22,460

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 103 N.E. 411 (Ryder v. Shea) 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

Ryder v. Shea, 103 N.E. 411, 180 Ind. 574, 1913 Ind. LEXIS 153 (Ind. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Morris, C. J.

[575]*575 1.

[574]*574The appeal here is from an interlocutory order, appointing a receiver without notice, jurisdiction of [575]*575which is vested in this court. Subd. 17, §1392 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 237. The record shows that on September 2, 1913, the trial court, on motion of appellees, without notice to appellants, appointed a receiver. The next morning appellant Ryder appeared and prayed an appeal to this court, and perfected his appeal as required hy §1289 Burns 1908, §1231 R. S. 1881. Before taking the appeal, no exception was reserved to the action of the trial court. On October 11, 1913, appellees filed a motion here, to dismiss the appeal, grounded solely on the proposition that there was no exception reserved in the court below. Appellees have filed a brief, in support of the motion, that evinces great industry and painstaking care in its preparation, and appellants’ brief, resisting the motion, is no less worthy of commendation. However, no question is presented for our consideration, for such a motion may not involve a question concerning the merits of the controversy. Elliott, App. Proc. §522; 3 Cyc. 197; Nevills v. Shortridge (1900), 129 Cal. 575, 62 Pac. 120; Hooper v. Beecher (1888), 109 N. Y. 609, 15 N. E. 742.

Note. — Reported in 103 N. E. 411. See, also, under (1) 3 Cyc. 1&7; (2) 3 Oye. 196.

2.

The question here presented involves nothing but the merits of the controversy. .There is no dispute about this court’s jurisdiction of the subject-matter, or of the persons of the appellees. No question arises with reference to the perfection of the appeal, or in regard to any matter that might furnish a ground for a motion to dismiss. Elliott, App. Proc. §§541-549.

If appellees’ contention shall prevail, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed; otherwise it must be reversed. The motion to dismiss is overruled at appellees’ cost.

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

Morris, C. J.

[575]*575 1.

[574]*574The appeal here is from an interlocutory order, appointing a receiver without notice, jurisdiction of [575]*575which is vested in this court. Subd. 17, §1392 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 237. The record shows that on September 2, 1913, the trial court, on motion of appellees, without notice to appellants, appointed a receiver. The next morning appellant Ryder appeared and prayed an appeal to this court, and perfected his appeal as required hy §1289 Burns 1908, §1231 R. S. 1881. Before taking the appeal, no exception was reserved to the action of the trial court. On October 11, 1913, appellees filed a motion here, to dismiss the appeal, grounded solely on the proposition that there was no exception reserved in the court below. Appellees have filed a brief, in support of the motion, that evinces great industry and painstaking care in its preparation, and appellants’ brief, resisting the motion, is no less worthy of commendation. However, no question is presented for our consideration, for such a motion may not involve a question concerning the merits of the controversy. Elliott, App. Proc. §522; 3 Cyc. 197; Nevills v. Shortridge (1900), 129 Cal. 575, 62 Pac. 120; Hooper v. Beecher (1888), 109 N. Y. 609, 15 N. E. 742.

Note. — Reported in 103 N. E. 411. See, also, under (1) 3 Cyc. 1&7; (2) 3 Oye. 196.

2.

The question here presented involves nothing but the merits of the controversy. .There is no dispute about this court’s jurisdiction of the subject-matter, or of the persons of the appellees. No question arises with reference to the perfection of the appeal, or in regard to any matter that might furnish a ground for a motion to dismiss. Elliott, App. Proc. §§541-549.

If appellees’ contention shall prevail, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed; otherwise it must be reversed. The motion to dismiss is overruled at appellees’ cost.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.E. 411, 180 Ind. 574, 1913 Ind. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryder-v-shea-ind-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack