Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

KROEGER LAUNDRY DRY CLEANERS, INC., ET AL. v. WILLIAMS ET AL.

1. BAILMENT — Action by Bailors Against Bailees — Complaint — Refusal to Return Property — Allegations Stating Cause of Action for Joint Conversion. — As against a demurrer for want of facts to state a cause of action, plaintiffs' complaint, which alleged delivery by plaintiffs of a bundle of clothes of a certain value to one defendant, that such defendant turned plaintiffs' bundle over to the other defendant; that possession had been demanded of both defendants; that the property was being held by both defendants who had refused to return it; that defendants had converted the property to their own use, sufficiently charged a joint conversion, and the demurrer was properly overruled. p. 300.

2. APPEAL — Bills of Exception — Failure to File in Time — Assignment of Error Relating to Evidence Not Considered. — Where the bill of exceptions containing the evidence was filed after the term and more than 30 days after entry of judgment, without procuring an extension of time as required by statute, the Supreme Court will not consider assigned errors which require a consideration of the evidence. p. 300.

3. APPEAL — Determination — Affirmance — Appeal Without Merit — Statutory Damages Awarded. — Where an appeal was without merit, judgment was affirmed with 10 per cent penalty. p. 300.

RICHMAN, C.J.

This appeal is from a judgment for $60. The only assigned error properly presented for consideration is the overruling of appellants' demurrer for want of facts to appellees' 1. complaint. It charges delivery by appellees of a bundle containing certain linen and clothing owned by them of the value of $40.81 to appellant, Kroeger Laundry Dry Cleaners, Inc., to be laundered, that said appellant turned the same over to the other appellant, that possession has been demanded of both appellants, "that said property is being held by both of said laundreis, who have refused and still refuse to return same, but have taken and appropriated the same to their own use" to appellees' damage in the sum of $250. While the complaint is not a model we think it sufficiently charges a joint conversion by appellants. The demurrer was properly overruled. Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Thatcher (1936), 104 Ind. App. 14, 4 N.E.2d 574.

The only other error assigned requires consideration of the evidence which is not in the record because the bill of exceptions containing same was filed after the term and 2. more than thirty days after the entry of judgment, without procuring extension of time as required by § 4-2525, Burns' 1933, § 1740, Baldwin's 1934.

The judgment is affirmed with ten (10%) percent penalty 3. and the cause is remanded for execution in accordance with § 2-3233, Burns' 1933, § 508, Baldwin's 1934.

NOTE. — Reported in 47 N.E.2d 612.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KROEGER LAUNDRY DRY CLEANERS, INC. v. WILLIAMS
(Mar 30, 1943)