TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williamson v. Von Hake

Williamson v. Von Hake, Treasurer

Williamson v. Von Hake, 115 N.E. 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 16, 1917
Docket
No. 9,726
Judges
Ibach
Citations
115 N.E. 33764 Ind. App. 1371917 Ind. App. LEXIS 42
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Headnotes
Appeal. — Time for Perfecting. — Dismissal.—Under §672 -Burns 1914, Acts 1913 p. 65, providing that appeals' must be taken within one hundred and eighty days from the time the judgment was rendered, an appeal taken thereafter on exceptions to conclusions of law must, in the absence of a motion for a new - trial, be dismissed.
Summary
From Marion Superior Court (94,457) ; Vincent G. Clifford, Judge. Action by Esther Williamson against Carl Von Hake, treasurer, and others. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ibach

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ibach, P. J.

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of appellee, defendant below, on February 26, 1916. Appellees appear specially and' move the court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not taken within the time allowed by statute.

The transcript with the assignment of errors was not filed in this court until August 25, 1916, more than 180 days from the time the judgment was rendered. Section 672 Burns 1914, Acts 1913 p. 65, provides: “Appeals in all cases hereafter tried must be taken within one hundred eighty (180) days from the time the judgment is rendered.” It has been held that where a mo *138 tion for new trial is filed the limitation begins to run from the time of the overruling of such motion. In this case, however, the questions sought to be presented arise on the exceptions to the conclusions of law and no motion for new trial was filed. It follows that the appeal is not taken within time and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Shay v. Horn (1914), 57 Ind. App. 116 , 106 N. E. 544 ; Thomas v. Thomas (1915), 61 Ind. App. 101 , 110 N. E. 573 . Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 115 N. E. 337 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Thomas v. Thomas, 110 N.E. 573 (Ind. Ct. App. 1915) 4
Shay v. Horn, 106 N.E. 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 1914) 2
M. Rumely Co. v. Major, 115 N.E. 337 (Ind. Ct. App. 1917) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list