palpable error in Indiana

1980Of that the legislature is primarily the judge; and we cannot overrule the decision of that department of government, unless a palpable error has been committed.” 95 U.S. at 632-633 .

1947The Constitution can not be evaded in this manner. ...” The appellees lean heavily upon the case of Follett v. Sheldon, Treas. (1924), 195 Ind. 510 , 144 N. E. 867 .

1947The Constitution can not be evaded in this manner. ...” The appellees lean heavily upon the case of Follett v. Sheldon, Treas. (1924), 195 Ind. 510 , 144 N. E. 867 .

1921Applying, therefore, the rule for the construction of statutes, any construction that deprives them of that right- would be a palpable violation of both-the spirit and letter of the statute.” In State v. Roby (1895), 142 Ind. 168 , 41 N. E. 145 , 33 L.

1921Applying, therefore, the rule for the construction of statutes, any construction that deprives them of that right- would be a palpable violation of both-the spirit and letter of the statute.” In State v. Roby (1895), 142 Ind. 168 , 41 N. E. 145 , 33 L.

1915It is true that, if there was such issuance and service, it was on the day the complaint was filed and decree rendered, which made the entry of the default before return day a palpable error; yet such error would not deprive the court of jurisdiction acquired by the issuance and service, and open the judgment to collateral attack.” In Stone v. Elliott (1914) 182 Ind. 454, 474 , 106 N. E. 710 , the court said: “The powers of a court extend to the determination of questions relating to its own jurisdiction.

1915It is true that, if there was such issuance and service, it was on the day the complaint was filed and decree rendered, which made the entry of the default before return day a palpable error; yet such error would not deprive the court of jurisdiction acquired by the issuance and service, and open the judgment to collateral attack.” In Stone v. Elliott (1914) 182 Ind. 454, 474 , 106 N. E. 710 , the court said: “The powers of a court extend to the determination of questions relating to its own jurisdiction.

1914Essig v. Lower (1889), 120 Ind. 239, 245 , 21 N. E. 1090 .

1914Essig v. Lower (1889), 120 Ind. 239, 245 , 21 N. E. 1090 .

1913In Goodrich v. Stangland (1900), 155 Ind. 279 , 58 N. E. 148 , where a defendant in a drainage proceeding had filed no remonstrance within the statutory period, it was held not reversible error to overrule a motion for a change of judge, because “The appellant had no standing in court.” Section 8 of the act (§6148 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 508) provides that no person shall be “permitted to take advantage of any error, defect, or informality, unless the person complaining thereof is directly affected thereby.” Appellants were not injured by any erroneous ruling of the court, as shown by the rec

1913In Goodrich v. Stangland (1900), 155 Ind. 279 , 58 N. E. 148 , where a defendant in a drainage proceeding had filed no remonstrance within the statutory period, it was held not reversible error to overrule a motion for a change of judge, because “The appellant had no standing in court.” Section 8 of the act (§6148 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 508) provides that no person shall be “permitted to take advantage of any error, defect, or informality, unless the person complaining thereof is directly affected thereby.” Appellants were not injured by any erroneous ruling of the court, as shown by the rec

1896Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 1 ; Lincoln v. Gray, 27 Vt. 355 .” See also Pearson v. Zehr, 138 Ill. 48 , where it is held that the slaughter by a live stock commission of animals supposed to be suffering from contagious disease does not conclude the owner from recovering if it cannot be shown that such animals actually had such disease, and it was said: “To permit the commissioners to determine, ex parte, that some of the horses had the glanders and that the others had been exposed thereto, and to hold that determination a justification for slaughtering the horses, without imposing upon the appell

1896Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 1 ; Lincoln v. Gray, 27 Vt. 355 .” See also Pearson v. Zehr, 138 Ill. 48 , where it is held that the slaughter by a live stock commission of animals supposed to be suffering from contagious disease does not conclude the owner from recovering if it cannot be shown that such animals actually had such disease, and it was said: “To permit the commissioners to determine, ex parte, that some of the horses had the glanders and that the others had been exposed thereto, and to hold that determination a justification for slaughtering the horses, without imposing upon the appell

1892In Carter v. Bustamente, 59 Miss. 559 , the court held that the wife of a grantor in a trust deed could acquire a tax title to the incumbered land, and defend against a purchaser at a sale by the trustee.

1892It is proper to say of the opinion in that case that it is apparent that the word must ” employed in the second paragraph on page 318 should be “ may,” for the context shows this, as does the criticism upon the cases of Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Dietrichs v. Schaw, 43 Ind. 175 ; Barkeloo v. Randall, 4 Blackf. 476 .

1892It is proper to say of the opinion in that case that it is apparent that the word must ” employed in the second paragraph on page 318 should be “ may,” for the context shows this, as does the criticism upon the cases of Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Dietrichs v. Schaw, 43 Ind. 175 ; Barkeloo v. Randall, 4 Blackf. 476 .

1892It is proper to say of the opinion in that case that it is apparent that the word must ” employed in the second paragraph on page 318 should be “ may,” for the context shows this, as does the criticism upon the cases of Krutz v. Howard, 70 Ind. 174 ; Dietrichs v. Schaw, 43 Ind. 175 ; Barkeloo v. Randall, 4 Blackf. 476 .

1892In the case of State, ex rel., v. Wolever, 127 Ind. 306 , the principle that where there is jurisdiction of a class of cases vested in any judicial tribunal, superior or inferior, thejudgment is not void, although there may be a palpable error in denying an application for a change of venue,is laid down, and that is the principle which underlies the case we have in hand.

1891Hurley v. McIver, supra; Wright v. Jones, 105 Ind. 17 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 31 N. J.

1891Hurley v. McIver, supra; Wright v. Jones, 105 Ind. 17 ; Stewart v. Stewart, 31 N. J.