Bd. of Commissioners v. Pershing, 53 N.E. 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 1899). · Go Syfert
Bd. of Commissioners v. Pershing, 53 N.E. 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 1899). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McGehee v. Elliott (indctapp, 2006-06-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McGehee v. Elliott
Ind. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Arlington State Bank v. Colvin (1989), Ind.App., 545 N.E .2d 572, 575, trans. denied; Goodwine v. Kelley et al. (1904), 33 Ind.App. 57, 61-62 , 70 N.E. 832, 834 ; see also Stoneburner v. Fletcher (1980), Ind.App., 408 N.E.2d 545, 551 (customary measure of damages as difference between contract price and market value found inapplicable because difference between contract price and market price was zero); Farmers’ & Citizens’ Building, Loan & Savings Association v. Rector (1899), 22 Ind.App. 101, 102-103 , 53 N.E. 297, 298 (difference between contract price and fair market value is measu…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Annon II, Inc. v. Rill
Ind. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Arlington State Bank v. Colvin (1989), Ind.App., 545 N.E.2d 572, 575 , trans. denied; Goodwine v. Kelley et al. (1904), 33 Ind.App. 57, 61-62 , 70 N.E. 832, 834 ; see also Stoneburner v. Fletcher (1980), Ind.App., 408 N.E.2d 545, 551 (customary measure of damages as difference between contract price and market value found inapplicable because difference between contract price and market price was zero) Farmers' & Citizens' Building, Loan & Savings Association v. Rector (1899), 22 Ind.App. 101, 102-103 , 53 N.E. 297, 298 (difference between contract price and fair market value is measure of…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Board of Commissioners of Tipton County
v.
Pershing
No. 2,944.
Indiana Court of Appeals.
Mar 30, 1899.
53 N.E. 297
1899 Ind. App. LEXIS 159
Gifford & Coleman, for appellant., Waugh, Kemp & Waugh, for appellee,
Robinson.
Published
Robinson, J.

— Transferred from the Supreme Court. The title of this case in the complaint filed is: “Marion W. Pershing v. The Board of Commissioners of Tipton county, Indiana.” The sole defendant named in the complaint is the board of commissioners. The board demurred to the complaint for want of facts, which demurrer was overruled, and refusing to plead further the following judgment was rendered: “It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court that plaintiff recover of said defendants Joseph II. Glass, E. Perry, - and Luther T. Bunch, commissioners of Tipton county, Indiana, the sum of,” etc. It is evident that this is not a judgment against the board of commissioners of Tipton county. In fact it does not appear that any valid judgment has been rendered in the case. The assignment of errors to this court is, “The Board of Commissioners of Tip-ton county, and State of Indiana, appellant v. Marvin W. Pershing, appellee. The appellant says there is manifest error,” etc. As no judgment was rendered against the-board of commissioners in the court below it is not in position[*148] to appeal to this court. Moon, Treas., v. Cline, 11 Ind. App. 460; McIlvaine, Tr., v. Adams, 46 Ind. 580; City of South Bend v. Thompson, 19 Ind. App. 19.

The appeal is dismissed, with costs.