Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Ind. 434

Sloan v. Whiteman

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 12, 1855

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1855-06-12

<p>a ^ r®'view) as a general rule, tlie same persons should be made parties who were parties to the proceeding sought to be reviewed; but they may be made complainants or defendants according to their interests in the matter to be reviewed.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-06-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1912

7 state decisions

301855186018701880189019001910decided

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 →

Davison, J.

¶1This was a bill of review, filed in the Fountain Circuit Court by Jackson Whiteman against Joseph L. Sloan, John Hamilton, Mary Babb, Rose Thomas, George Thomas and Lucinda Thomas, the said Mary, Rose, George and Lucinda being the heirs at law of one William Thomas, deceased. The object of the bill was to reverse a decree of said Fountain Circuit Court, rendered at its September term, 1838, in a suit then pending in that Court, wherein the said Joseph L. Slocm was complainant and Jackson Whiteman, the present complainant, and the said William Thomas, then in life, were defendants.

¶2To the present bill there was a demurrer overruled, and a final decree given for the complainant below.

¶3The only ground assumed in support of the demurrer is, that the heirs of William Thomas should have been made complainants, instead of defendants. We are not of that opinion. 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; but we think they may be brought into Court either as complainants or defendants, in accordance with their respective interests in the matter to be reviewed.

Per Curiam.

¶4The decree is affirmed with costs.

/6/ind/434 · .json · Public domain