Bayless v. Jones

Indiana Court of Appeals

Bayless v. Jones

37 N.E. 421, 10 Ind. App. 102, 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 117

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1894

DocketNo. 1,177

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 N.E. 421 (Bayless v. Jones) 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

Bayless v. Jones, 37 N.E. 421, 10 Ind. App. 102, 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Gavin, J.

In order to save any question by a motion in arrest of judgment, it must be made before the judgment is rendered. Potter v. McCormack, 127 Ind. 489; Colchen v. Ninde, 120 Ind. 88; Hansher v. Hanshew, 94 Ind. 208; Brownlee, Admr., v. Hare, 64 Ind. 311; Hilligoss v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co., 40 Ind. 112; Smith v. Dodds, 35 Ind. 452.

The motion in this case was, therefore, filed too late. Even had it been filed at the proper time, it would have availed nothing, because whatever defect there may have been in the complaint was cured by the verdict. Hasselman Printing Co. v. Fry, 9 Ind. App. 393; Duffy v. Carman, 3 Ind. App. 207; Citizens’ St. R. W. Co. v. Willoeby, 134 Ind. 563, and cases there cited.

A motion in arrest, based upon defects in the complaint, reaches such only as are not cured by the verdict or finding. Jones v. Ahrens, 116 Ind. 490; Sims v. Dame, 113 Ind. 127; Balliett v. Humphreys, 78 Ind. 388.

Judgment affirmed.

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