Walter A. Wood Reaping & Mfg. Co. v. Angemeier

• Decision Date: 16 October 1912
• Docket Number: No. 7,919.,7,919.
• Citation: 99 N.E. 500,51 Ind.App. 258
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: WALTER A. WOOD REAPING & MFG. CO. et al. v. ANGEMEIER et al.

51 Ind.App. 258

99 N.E. 500

WALTER A. WOOD REAPING & MFG. CO. et al.

v.ANGEMEIER et al.

No. 7,919.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Oct. 16, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vanderburgh County; Curran A. De Bruler, Judge.

Action between the Walter A. Wood Reaping & Manufacturing Company and others and Nicholas Angemeier and others. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, an appeal was taken. Affirmed.

Elmer Q. Lockyear, Funkhouser & Funkhouser, Van Buskirk & Osborn, and Walker & Walker, all of Evansville, for appellants. William Reister, of Evansville, for appellees.

HOTTEL, C. J.

This is a suit by the creditors of the “Evansville implement & Farmers' Supply Company,” a corporation, against the stockholders of such corporation to enforce a statutory liability under section 4051, Burns 1908. The only question attempted to be presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of the complaint as against demurrers.

[1] The assignment of error relied upon to present this question is as follows: “The court erred in sustaining the demurrers of the appellees to the appellants' complaint.” It will be observed that this assignment by its language indicates that the ruling upon more than one demurrer is relied upon for reversal. That more than one demurrer was filed is also disclosed by the record. At least two were filed, one by attorneys representing one group of defendants, and the other by attorneys representing another group of defendants. The form of the demurrer, or the averments of the pleading to which it was addressed, might have been of such a character as to make the ruling correct as to one of the demurrers and erroneous as to the other. The rulings were each independent of the other, and present to this court separate independent rulings, either or both of which may or may not be erroneous, depending in each instance upon the form and grounds of the demurrer and the sufficiency of the averments of the pleading to which it is addressed, to state a cause of action against either or all of the parties to such demurrer.

The assignment of error in this case in no way separates, specifies, or indentifies these separate independnt rulings as being erroneous. This court in the case of Spitzer v. Miller, 35 Ind. App. 116, 117, 73 N. E. 833, in discussing this question, says: “The statute (section 667, Burns 1901; section 655, R. S. 1881) and rule 4 (55 N. E. iv) of this court require that an assignment of error shall be specific, and the rule expressly requires that each specification shall be complete in itself. Each supposed error must be specified. The specifications must be distinct. Each specification in itself alone must be sufficient to require the court on appeal to review some action of the court below, and it must not be addressed to a number of separate supposed errors.” (Our italics.)...