Legal Opinion

Dick v. Mullins

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 25, 1891No. 16,084PublishedCited by 5 opinions

From the Pulaski Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.

Notice of the appeal was served upon the appellees, and the service is proved by the acknowledgment of their attorney. They have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because of the alleged insufficiency of the notice of appeal, but they have not given the appellants notice of the *366motion. The rules of the court require notice of such motions, and there must be a compliance with those rules. Rule XIV* The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled, with instructions to the clerk to tax the costs of the motion against the appellees.

Filed May 25, 1891.

The questions argued by the appellants’…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wagoner v. WilsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. VoightIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Fiscus v. TurnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Patterson v. ChurchmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Clark v. State ex rel. WeirIndiana Supreme Court · 1890

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. McCoy v. AbleIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Morningstar v. MusserIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Stanley v. HollidayIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Kalish v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Noble v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1909

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API