History
  • No items yet
midpage
Kempf v. Union Saving & Loan Ass'n
13 Ind. App. 570
Ind. Ct. App.
1895
Check Treatment
Davis, J.

The judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted was rendered upon a bond, in which Kempf was principal and the other appellants were sureties. The appellants Hess, Ebricht and Meyer, answered separately each from the other.

The only error discussed by counsel for appellants is the following: ‘ ‘ Come now the appellants in the above entitled cause, Robert Kempf, Casper Hess, August Ebricht and Prederick A. Meyer, and assign for error herein, the following, to-wit:

1. The court at special term erred in sustaining the demurrer of the plaintiff to the fourth and sixth para*571graph of the separate answer of the defendants Hess, Ebricht, and Meyer.”

Filed November 20, 1895.

The rule is well settled that when several parties unite in a joint assignment of error, they will encounter defeat, unless the assignment is good as to all. Elliott App. Proced., section 318. Arbuckle v. Swim, 123 Ind. 208; Bower v. Bowen, 139 Ind. 31, 35 ; Town of Ladoga v. Linn, 9 Ind. App. 15; Wall v. Bagby, 126 Ind. 372.

Therefore no question is presented for our consideration.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Kempf v. Union Saving & Loan Ass'n
Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals
Date Published: Nov 20, 1895
Citation: 13 Ind. App. 570
Docket Number: No 1,782
Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.