Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

155 Ind. 569

Meyer v. Meyer

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1900

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1900-12-12

<p>Appeal and Error. — Joint Assignment of Error. — A joint assignment of error based upon the action of the court in overruling a motion for a new trial cannot be considered on appeal, where the only motion for a new trial appearing in the record was the sole and separate motion of one of the appellants.</p>

Relies on Earhart v. Farmers' Creamery

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1900-12-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1929

5 state decisions

30190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hadley, J.

¶1— Appellee, as plaintiff, in his suit to contest the will of Heinrich W. Meyer, made appellant, Margaretha Meyer, and ten others, defendants, alleging that said defendants were all beneficiaries under said will. Verdict and judgment that the will was void and that the probate thereof be annulled. Margaretha Meyer filed her separate motion for a new trial, which was overruled, to which ruling she excepted. In this court the only error assigned is in the following words: “Margaretha Meyer, Harry Robert Meyer [Nine other names follow.], appellants, v. Christian Meyer, appellee. The appellants say that there is manifest error in the proceedings and judgment in said *570cause, and. they specially assign the following: The court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial.”

¶2The only motion for a new trial. that appears in the record is the sole and separate motion of Margaretha Meyer. Her code'fendants not having participated in the request for, a new trial cannot he heard to complain that the motion was not granted. The error assigned is joint and not the separate assignment of Margaretha Meyer.

¶3It is a well settled rule of appellate procedure that a joint assignment of error must he good as to all who unite in it, or it will be good as to none. Ewbank’s Manual, §138; Elliott’s App. Proc., §318; Earhart v. Farmers, etc., Co., 148 Ind. 79.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/155/ind/569 · .json · Public domain