Sparklin v. Wardens & Vestrymen of St. James' Church

22 N.E. 8, 119 Ind. 535, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 327
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 28, 1889
DocketNo. 13,796
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 22 N.E. 8 (Sparklin v. Wardens & Vestrymen of St. James' Church) 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
Sparklin v. Wardens & Vestrymen of St. James' Church, 22 N.E. 8, 119 Ind. 535, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 327 (Ind. 1889).

Opinion

Olds, J. —

This is an action brought by the appellees against Charles C. Sparklin, Anna L. Sparklin, Henry Kolb and William Gross, for the possession of and to quiet title to certain real estate described in the complaint. Issue was joined and there was a trial resulting in a judgment in favor of the appellees, and Sparklin and Sparklin appeal to this court.

The appellants jointly assign as error: First. The overruling of the demurrer to the complaint, and Second. Error in sustaining the demurrer to the answer of Anna L. Sparklin.

The first alleged error is not discussed by counsel in their brief, and is, therefore, waived. There is not a proper assignment of the second alleged error.

The defendant Anna L. Sparklin filed a separate answer to the complaint, to which there was a demurrer filed and sustained, and both of the appellants join in the assignment of error that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to said separate answer of Anna L.

It has been repeatedly held by this court that a joint as[536]*536signment of error by several appellants presents no question as to a ruling against one of the appellants, and which constitutes error against one only. Orton v. Tilden, 110 Ind. 131; Hinkle v. Shelley, 100 Ind. 88; Robbins v. Magee, 96 Ind. 174; Boyd v. Pfeifer, 95 Ind. 599; Williams v. Riley, 88 Ind. 290; Feeney v. Mazelin, 87 Ind. 226; Eichbredt v. Angerman, 80 Ind. 208.

Filed June 28, 1889.

There is no question presented for the decision of this court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Coffin v. Pfau
112 N.E. 21 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1916)
Southern Railway Co. v. Bretz
104 N.E. 19 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1914)
Fowler v. Newsom
90 N.E. 9 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1909)
Greenawalt v. Natrona Improvement Co.
92 P. 1008 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1907)
Home Electric Light & Power Co. v. Collins
66 N.E. 780 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1903)
Advance Manufacturing Co. v. Auch
58 N.E. 1062 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Doty v. Patterson
56 N.E. 668 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1900)
Green v. Heaston
56 N.E. 87 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1900)
Armstrong v. Dunn
41 N.E. 540 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Carr v. Carr
36 N.E. 899 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Irey v. Mater
33 N.E. 1018 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Smoot
33 N.E. 905 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1893)
Braden v. Leibenguth
25 N.E. 899 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
Arbuckle v. Swim
24 N.E. 105 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 N.E. 8, 119 Ind. 535, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparklin-v-wardens-vestrymen-of-st-james-church-ind-1889.