Kist v. Coughlin
| Decision Date | 22 November 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 27986.,27986. |
| Citation | 222 Ind. 639,57 N.E.2d 586 |
| Parties | KIST et al. v. COUGHLIN et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On motion to modify first paragraph of mandate of original opinion and on petitions for rehearing.
Mandate of original opinion modified and petitions for rehearing denied.
For former opinion, see, 57 N.E.2d 199, which superseded50 N.E.2d 939.Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; Claude C. Ball, Special judge.
David A. Myers, of Greensburg, Roscoe D. Wheat, of Portland, James Murphy, of Fort Wayne, Albert A. Abromson, of Portland, and Chattin & Wise, of Union City, for appellant.
R. L. Ewbank, of Indianapolis, George H. Koons, of Muncie, W. H. Eichhorn, of Bluffton, and Robert L. Smith and Frank B. Jaqua, both of Portland, for appellee.
The appellee, Jane B. Coughlin, Trustee, has moved to modify the first paragraph of the mandate of the original opinion.
In the opinion we held that Joseph M. Aldridge, Edward E. Cleveland, Robert W. Reid, William M. Greenleaf, Clyde Simpson, William H. Miles, Julius D. Jones, Aaron Spievak, Solomon J. Highsmith, Liston O. Reed, David G. Fender, Nelson M. Dall, and Henry R. Ford were not parties to either the main action or the summary proceeding. This being true, the judgment against them should be reversed and no judgment should be rendered either for or against them.
The first paragraph of the mandate of the opinion is therefore modified to read as follows:
The judgment is reversed as to the Portland Republican Company, Joseph M. Aldridge, Edward E. Cleveland, Robert W. Reid, William M. Greenleaf, Clyde Simpson, William H. Miles, Julius D. Jones, Aaron Spievak, Solomon J. Highsmith, Liston O. Reed, David G. Fender, Nelson M. Dall, Henry R. Ford and Urban T. Bonifas, and the lower court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of the Portland Republican Company and Urban T. Bonifas, but with costs as against Urban T. Bonifas.
The mandate of the original opinion is modified as above indicated, and the petitions for rehearing are denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. v. Oestricher, 17417.
......In determining its sufficiency as a bill of exceptions against the objections urged we must examine the instrument as a whole. Kist v. Coughlin, 1944, 222 Ind. 639, 57 N.E.2d 199,57 N.E.2d 586. Such an examination reveals, following a caption which discloses the title, number and ......
-
Hayes Freight Lines v. Oestricher
......In determining its. sufficiency as a bill of exceptions against the objections. urged we must examine the instrument as a whole. Kist v. Coughlin, 1944, 222 Ind. 639, 57 N.E.2d 199, 57 N.E.2d. 586. Such an examination reveals, following a caption which. discloses the title, ......
-
Kist v. Coughlin
...57 N.E.2d 586 222 Ind. 639 KIST et al. v. COUGHLIN et al. No. 27986.Supreme Court of IndianaNovember 22, Appeal [222 Ind. 644] from Randolph Circuit Court; Claude C. Ball, Special judge. David A. Myers, of Greensburg, Roscoe D. Wheat, of Portland, James Murphy, of Fort Wayne, Albert A. Abro......