Arbuckle v. McCoy
53 Ind. 63
This text of 53 Ind. 63 (Arbuckle v. McCoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Arbuckle v. McCoy, 53 Ind. 63 (Ind. 1876).
Opinion
Where the court has improperly refused to grant a continuance, the ruling must be made a ground [64]*64of a motion for a new trial, in order to present the question to this court, and then it must be done by assigning as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial. Carr v. Eaton, 42 Ind. 385, and cases cited; Buskirk's Pr. 224.
The judgment is affirmed, with five per cent, damages and costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cronin v. Logansport Daily Reporter Co.
98 N.E. 303 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)
Yazel v. State
84 N.E. 972 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1908)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
53 Ind. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arbuckle-v-mccoy-ind-1876.