Hopp v. Luken
| Decision Date | 16 November 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 7,353.,7,353. |
| Citation | 89 N.E. 916,44 Ind.App. 568 |
| Parties | HOPP v. LUKEN et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Starke County; George Burson, Special Judge.
Action by William Luken and another against John H. Hopp and others, in which defendant John H. Hopp filed a cross-complaint against plaintiffs and certain of the codefendants. From a judgment for plaintiffs and against cross-complainant Hopp, the latter appeals. Dismissed.
Harry C. Miller, for appellant. W. C. Pentecost and H. R. Robbins, for appellees.
On December 24, 1904, appellees Luken and Voght filed a complaint against appellant, John Hopp, and numerous other parties not named in this appeal, to quiet title to certain land in Starke county. Each of said defendants in said action filed separate cross-complaints, making their codefendants and appellees, Luken and Voght, defendants to their cross-complaints, respectively. Thereupon appellees Luken and Voght dismissed their complaint and each filed separate demurrers to each of said cross-complaints, which demurrers were sustained. No judgments were rendered upon any of these rulings of the court, or upon the dismissal of the complaint by appellees Luken and Voght. Appellant, Hopp, then filed an amended cross-complaint, making Luken, Voght, and his codefendant, Fred Kasch, the Lion Brewing Company, and the Northern Indiana Brewing Company defendants thereto. To this cross-complaint Luken and Voght each filed separate demurrers, which demurrers were sustained, and the record recites that Hopp abided the ruling of the court on the demurrer and refuses to plead further, and that judgment for costs should go against him. Judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of Luken and Voght and against cross-complainant, Hopp.
Appellees Luken and Voght have filed a motion to dismiss the cause for the reason that the judgment appealed from is not a final judgment. It will be observed that there has been no adjudication of the rights of any of the parties in said cause, who were before the court, except Luken and Voght. The cross-complaint of Hopp, upon which the judgment appealed from is based, shows that there is a cause of action still pending and existing between Hopp and Kasch, the Northern Brewing Company, and the Lion Brewing Company. These defendants have never been defaulted, have never answered, or pleaded in any way to said cross-complaint. Their rights therefore are unadjudicated and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wehmeier v. Mercantile Banking Co.
...To the same effect are Barnes v. Wagener, 169 Ind. 511, 82 N. E. 1037;Keller v. Jordan, 147 Ind. 113, 46 N. E. 343;Hopp v. Luken, 44 Ind. App. 568, 89 N. E. 916;Rife v. Diamond, etc., Co., 42 Ind. App. 346, 85 N. E. 726. [2] The form of the judgment rendered in this case is that of a final ......
-
Wehmeier v. Mercantile Banking Company
... ... v. Wagener (1907), 169 Ind. 511, 82 N.E. 1037; ... Keller v. Jordan (1897), 147 Ind. 113, 46 ... N.E. 343; Hopp v. Luken (1909), 44 Ind.App ... 568, 89 N.E. 916; Rife v. Diamond Flint Glass ... Co. (1908), 42 Ind.App. 346, 85 N.E. 726 ... ...
-
Unnewehr v. Elrod, 10998.
...204, 82 N. E. 461;Northern, etc., Co. v. Peoples, etc., Co. (1915) 184 Ind. 267, 111 N. E. 4; Faylor v. Koontz, supra; Hopp v. Luken (1909) 44 Ind. App. 568, 89 N. E. 916. In the case last cited the court expressly held that- “Where judgments are taken in an action between different parties......
-
Unnewehr v. Elrod
... ... 204, 82 N.E. 461; ... Northern, etc., Co. v. Peoples, etc., Co ... (1916), 184 Ind. 267, 111 N.E. 4; Faylor v ... Koontz, supra; Hopp v ... Luken (1909), 44 Ind.App. 568, 89 N.E. 916. In the ... case last cited the court expressly held that--"Where ... judgments are taken in an ... ...