Arbuckle v. McCoy
53 Ind. 63
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
Arbuckle v. McCoy, 53 Ind. 63 (Ind. 1876).
53 Ind. 63 (Arbuckle v. McCoy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)