Harlan v. Watson

Decided May 15, 1872

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1872-05-15

<p>Supreme Court.—Notice.—Where notice is not given to co-parties not joining in an appeal to the Supreme Court, as required by section 551 of the code, the appeal will be dismissed.</p> <p>Same—Parties.—Guardian ad Litem.—A guardian ad litem cannot appeal to the Supreme Court in his own name.</p>

Relies on Kirby v. Holmes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1872-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 1936

14 state decisions

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 →

Downey, J.

¶1This action was commenced by the appellees against Joshua K. Harlan, Sr., Arttissa Harlan, Joshua K. Harlan, Jr., John O. Harlan, Rosa B. Harlan, and Josiah M. Clark, to set aside certain conveyances as made to defraud creditors. There was judgment against the defendants. Part of them appeal, and the assignment of errors is by Arttissa Harlan alone, in her own behalf and as guardian ad litem for Joshua K. Harlan, Jr., John C. Harlan, and Rosa B. Harlan.

¶2We think the appeal will have to be dismissed. A guardian ad litem cannot appeal in his or her own name. But in addition to this there is no appeal by the other defendants, nor is any notice served on them,' as required by 2 G. & H. 270, sec. 551; and see Kirby v. Holmes, 6 Ind. 33.

¶3T¿ie appeal is dismissed, with costs.