Baertz v. Schmidt

Indiana Court of Appeals

Baertz v. Schmidt

67 N.E. 697, 31 Ind. App. 698, 1903 Ind. App. LEXIS 198

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 2, 1903

DocketNo. 4,270

StatusPublished

This text of 67 N.E. 697 (Baertz v. Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baertz v. Schmidt, 67 N.E. 697, 31 Ind. App. 698, 1903 Ind. App. LEXIS 198 (Ind. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Henley, J.

The record in this case presents but one question— the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial assigns but two causes: (1) That the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.

We have carefully examined and considered the evidence, and we find upon every material point the evidence is conflicting. Under such circumstances this court will not disturb the judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Henley, J.

The record in this case presents but one question— the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial assigns but two causes: (1) That the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.

We have carefully examined and considered the evidence, and we find upon every material point the evidence is conflicting. Under such circumstances this court will not disturb the judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 N.E. 697, 31 Ind. App. 698, 1903 Ind. App. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baertz-v-schmidt-indctapp-1903.