Hague v. The First National Bank of Huntington
| Citation | 65 N.E. 907,159 Ind. 636 |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1903 |
| Docket Number | 19,716 |
| Parties | Hague et al. v. The First National Bank of Huntington |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Huntington Circuit Court; J. W. Adair, Special Judge.
Suit by Thomas H. Hague and others against the First National Bank of Huntington. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Transferred from Appellate Court, under § 1337u Burns 1901.
Affirmed.
M. L Spencer, W. A. Branyan and H. B. Spencer, for appellants.
R. A Kaufman, O. W. Whitelock and S. E. Cook, for appellee.
Appellants brought this action to review a judgment obtained against them by the appellee. The amended complaint is in two paragraphs, to each of which the appellee demurred separately and severally. The demurrer was sustained to each paragraph of the amended complaint and appellants excepted.
The only assignment of error is in these words: "The court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the amended complaint." This assignment assails collectively the separate and distinct rulings of the court on the demurrer to each of the two paragraphs of the amended complaint, and under the well established rule in this State the assignment must fail unless valid as to both. Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115, 33 N.E. 905; Black v. Thompson, 136 Ind. 611, 36 N.E. 643; Dorsett v. City of Greencastle, 141 Ind. 38, 40 N.E. 131; Moore v. Morris, 142 Ind. 354, 41 N.E. 796; Saunders v. Montgomery, 143 Ind. 185, 41 N.E. 453.
The substance of the first paragraph is as follows: That on August 28, 1898, the defendant, the First National Bank of Huntington, filed in this court its complaint against these plaintiffs for an injunction forbidding the plaintiffs from tearing down, or in any way interfering with a certain building situate on land therein described. A summons was duly issued and served on the plaintiffs whereupon they appeared to the action, filed their answer in general denial, and the cause was then submitted to the court for trial. The court, upon request, made a special finding of facts, and stated its conclusion of law thereon in favor of the bank, to the effect that it was entitled to a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants--these plaintiffs--from interfering with the building described in the complaint, which conclusion of law was erroneous upon the facts found, and the plaintiffs excepted thereto at the time, but the exception was overruled, and the court rendered judgment against these plaintiffs in accordance therewith; whereupon these plaintiffs moved the court to modify said judgment so as to limit the time of the injunction to six months within which the bank should remove said building to its own land, but the motion was overruled, and these plaintiffs at the time excepted. These plaintiffs then moved the court for a new trial for reasons stated in the motion, which motion was overruled, and these plaintiffs excepted. The evidence is all brought into the record by a bill of exceptions duly signed, certified, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial