Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 Ind. 493

Douglay v. Davis

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1873

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1873-11-15

<p>PARTIES.—Review of Judgment.—As a general rule, in a proceeding to review-a judgment, the same parties, and all of them, should be before the court as-» in the original proceeding sought to be reviewed.</p>

Relies on Sloan v. Whiteman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 1934

11 state decisions

401873188018901900191019201930decided

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, C. J.

¶1In 1856, Davis Cotes, administrator of •the estate of R. Montgomery Davis, deceased, with the will -annexed, commenced a suit in the Allen Circuit Court •against William Lockhead, or the unknown heirs of William Lockhead, deceased, Catherine Davis, Arthur T. Davis, Theodore M. Davis, Gertrude M. Davis, Israel R. Whitney, Daniel R. Whitney, and Joseph Douglay, to enforce the execution and delivery of a deed for certain real estate, etc., and there was judgment for the plaintiff. On the 30th day of December, 186$, said Gertrude M. Davis filed her complaint In this action, making defendants thereto the said Davis 'Cotes, William Lockhead, the unknown heirs of William Lockhead, Catherine Davis, Arthur T. Davis, Theodore M. Davis, Israel R. Whitney, Daniel R. Whitney, and Joseph '.Douglay, to review the said judgment. '

¶2Upon service o-f summons on Joseph Douglay only, without notice of' any kind to the other parties, the court ren•dered judgment reversing the former judgment. Among ■other errors, it is alleged by the appellant that the court •erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff below.

¶3Counsel discuss very important and intricate questions, •which are supposed to be involved in the case. But upon these questions the other parties to the action ought to have ;a chance to be heard, not only in this court, but also in the •court below.

¶4' “As a general rule, a bill of review ought to have the same parties that were to the proceeding sought to be reversed; •that is, the same parties should be before the court,” etc. Sloan v. Whiteman, 6 Ind. 434. The necessary parties were •made in this case, but the record shows that none of them,, except the appellant, were brought before the court. We -think that, without deciding the questions discussed bycoun.sel, the judgment ought to be reversed, that the other parities may be notified and have an opportunity to be heard...

*495Opinion filed November term, 1873 ;petition for a rehearing overruled May term, 1874.

¶5The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

¶6Worden, J., was absent.

/45/ind/493 · .json · Public domain