Skip to main content
· 12/18/1916

Ex parte Indiana Transportation Co.

Citations

  • 242 U.S. 281
  • 37 S. Ct. 126
  • 61 L. Ed. 301
  • 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1498

Syllabus

<p>In a proceeding in prohibition, wherein a District Judge had been ruled to show cause why the execution of an order should not be restrained for want of jurisdiction,-a request was made on the return day, by the persons interested in upholding the order, that a return tendered by them be accepted as the return to the rule and that they be treated as the respondents. Held, that the judge is the essential-party respondent and the request must therefore be denied.</p> <p>No return having been made by the respondent on the return day, the time for his return is, under the circumstances, extended.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “The importance of a signature on a will is its indication of final testamentary intent.”
  • affidavits of attesting witnesses not admissible to prove testamentary intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.