Case Name: James C. Hodgson v. William Billson and W. Jones
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1873-01
Citations: 11 Kan. 357
Docket Number: 
Parties: James C. Hodgson v. William Billson and W. Jones.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 357–358

Head Matter:
James C. Hodgson v. William Billson and W. Jones.
1. Parties; Who are Necessary, as Defendants inlhror; Practice. Where a joint judgment is rendered in the district court in favor of two plaintiffs and against one defendant personally, and where the defendant takes the case to the supreme court on petition in error, but obtains service of summons on only one of the defendants in error, and no appearance is made in the supreme court by either of the defendants in error, the petition in error must be dismissed for the want of one of the necessary parties. ,
2.--In such case the defendant in error not served is a necessary party to the determination of the petition in error, and, no judgment of reversal can be rendered against him until he has had an opportunity of being heard in the supreme court.
3.--The plaintiff in error should not submit his case to the supreme court for a decision upon its merits, until he has brought all necessary parties before the court. Unless such parties are in court, he should continue his case, and bring them in.
Error from Greenwood District Court.
The decision in this case involves only questions of practice ; and the facts upon which they arise are fully stated in the opinion. The district court, at the September Term 1872, gave judgment in favor of Billson & Jones and against Hodgson, and the latter brings the case here.
Almerin Gillett, for plaintiff in error.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
This action was commenced in the court below by William Billson and W. Jones, as Billson & Jones, against James C. Hodgson and others to recover for materials furnished and work done on a certain house, and to foreclose a mechanics' lien on the house for the value of said work and materials. A personal judgment was rendered against said Hodgson and in favor of the plaintiffs below for the value of said work and material, but the mechanics' lien was dismissed. Hodgson brought the case to this court on petition in error, but he has obtained service of summons on Billson only; and there has been no appearance in this court for either Billson or J ones. From an inspection of the record we are inclined to think that the judgment below should be reversed for errors which we do not think it is necessary to mention, but we cannot reverse the judgment as against Jones, for he has not been brought into court. (Ferguson v. Smith, 10 Kas., 394.) He is a necessary party to the determination of this petition in error, and must have an opportunity to be heard before we can decide against him.
The plaintiff in error should have continued the case until he could have obtained service on J ones. But as he has not done so, and as he has submitted the case to us for a decision upon its merits, the only proper course left for us is to dismiss it for the want of one of the necessary parties. The petition in error is therefore dismissed.
All the Justices concurring.
[* Since the filing of this opinion plaintiff in error has commenced his action anew in this court, by filing a new petition in error, and obtaining proper service on both defendants; and the action is now pending on its merits.—Reporter.]