Kemp v. Prather
| Decision Date | 26 October 1905 |
| Docket Number | 5,907 |
| Citation | Kemp v. Prather, 36 Ind. App. 382, 75 N. E. 673 (Ind. App. 1905) |
| Parties | KEMP ET AL. v. PRATHER ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Madison Circuit Court; John F. McClure, Judge.
Petition by Leanna Kemp and others for the location of a highway against which William B. Prather and others remonstrate. From a judgment in favor of remonstrants, petitioners appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Walter Vermillion and Bagot & Bagot, for appellants.
Kittinger & Diven, for appellees.
This appeal is taken from a judgment rendered by the court below in favor of appellees and four others, ordering and directing the Board of Commissioners of the County of Madison to correct its record in the matter of a certain highway petitioned for by appellants, Leanna Kemp and others.
It appears from the record in this case that appellants petitioned said board of commissioners for the location of a certain highway in said county; that the petition was presented at the April term, 1902, of said board, and thereafter such proceedings were had before said board, and over the several remonstrances filed by William B. Prather Perry Coy, Alexander W. McClintock, Benjamin F. Coy Ferdinand Lutz, Sylvester G. Prather, Dora Coy, Sanford M Coy and Mary J. Wise, that said highway was ordered established; that on July 25, 1902, said remonstrators appealed to the Madison Circuit Court from the action of said board in establishing said highway. In June, 1903, and while said appeal was pending, William B. Prather, Benjamin F. Coy, Dora Coy, Perry Coy, Sylvester G. Prather, Sanford M. Coy, Mary J. Wise, Ferdinand Lutz and Alexander W. McClintock filed with said board of commissioners a motion, asking said board to correct its record in certain particulars with reference to said highway, and for a nunc pro tunc entry to make it speak the truth. This motion was overruled by the board. Thereupon the makers of the motion appealed from this action of the board to the Madison Circuit Court, where the matters and facts set forth in said motion were tried, resulting in a finding and judgment in favor of the makers of the motion.
In this appeal Leanna Kemp and twenty others appear as appellants, and William B. Prather, Alexander W. McClintock, Benjamin F. Coy, Sylvester G. Prather and Ferdinand Lutz appear as appellees in the assignment of errors.
A motion to dismiss this appeal is made by appellees on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of this cause, because all the parties to the final judgment are not before this court. Appellants have not favored us with any reason why appellees' motion should not prevail, nor do we call to mind any theory authorizing us to overrule it. This is a vacation appeal from a single judgment against appellants and in favor of William B Prather...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Harrison v. Western Construction Company
... ... Smith (1894), 139 ... Ind. 48, 38 N.E. 395; Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co. v ... Frankel (1898), 151 Ind. 534, 50 N.E. 304; ... Kemp v. Prather (1905), 36 Ind.App. 382, 75 ... N.E. 673; Polk v. Johnson (1906), 167 Ind ... 548, 78 N.E. 652; Nordyke & Marmon Co. v ... ...
-
West v. Goodwin
... ... N.E. 45; Wilkinson v. Vordermark (1904), 32 ... Ind.App. 633, 70 N.E. 538; Holderman v ... Wood (1905), 34 Ind.App. 519, 73 N.E. 199; ... Kemp v. Prather (1905), 36 Ind.App. 382, 75 ... N.E. 673; Lowe v. Turpie (1897), 147 Ind ... 652, 37 L. R. A. 233, 44 N.E. 25; Abshire v ... ...
-
Harrison v. Western Const. Co.
...40 N. E. 256;Gregory v. Smith, 139 Ind. 48, 38 N. E. 395;Michigan Mutual, etc., v. Frankel, 151 Ind. 534, 50 N. E. 304;Kemp v. Prather, 36 Ind. App. 382, 75 N. E. 673;Polk v. Johnson, 167 Ind. 548, 78 N. E. 652, 79 N. E. 491;Nordyke-Marmon Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 162 Ind. 663, 71 N. E. 46;Smith......
-
West v. Goodwin
...50 N. E. 45;Wilkinson v. Vordermark, 32 Ind. App. 633, 70 N. E. 538;Holderman v. Wood, 34 Ind. App. 519, 73 N. E. 199;Kemp v. Prather, 36 Ind. App. 382, 75 N. E. 673;Lowe v. Turpie, 147 Ind. 652, 44 N. E. 25, 47 N. E. 150, 37 L. R. A. 233;Abshire v. Williamson, 149 Ind. 248, 48 N. E. 1027;S......