Boots v. Griffiths

Indiana Supreme Court

Boots v. Griffiths

97 Ind. 241, 1884 Ind. LEXIS 411

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 24, 1884

DocketNo. 11,355

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 97 Ind. 241 (Boots v. Griffiths) 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

Boots v. Griffiths, 97 Ind. 241, 1884 Ind. LEXIS 411 (Ind. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Elliott, C. J.

Counsel for appellee affirm that there is no certificate to the transcript, but in this they are in error. There is a certificate of all papers ordered by the appellant, and they ■show on their face a complete record of the case. Where there is a certificate of the clerk, properly worded and authenticated, showing that all the papers in the case ordered by the appellant are embodied in the record, and the papers show on their face that the record is full, correct and complete, no more is needed.

Counsel are also in error in asserting that the record does not show that interrogatories were submitted to the jury, for an entry appears in the record showing their submission by the court. It is not necessary that the interrogatories to the jury, and their answers should be incorporated in a bill of exceptions. Salander v. Lockwood, 66 Ind. 285. The case just cited overruled Shaw v. Merchants Nat’l Bank, 60 Ind. 83, where a different rule was declared. The rule adopted in [242]*242Salander v. Lockwood, supra, had been previously affirmed in Campbell v. Dutch, 36 Ind. 504, and was approved in Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v. Clark, 73 Ind. 168. This ease is, therefore, not within the rule in The Cleveland, etc., R. W. Co. v. Bowen, 70 Ind. 478.

Filed Sept. 24, 1884.

We are unable to see how the interrogatory objected to-worked appellant any injury, as the general verdict was against him, and on that the judgment is founded. If it were conceded that the court erred in propounding the interrogatory,, it is clear that the error-was a harmless one, and such an error will not warrant a reversal. ’

Submitting an interrogatory to a jury is not the expression of an opinion upon the evidence. The court expresses no-opinion one way or the other, but simply directs the jury to answer a question.

We think the cause was correctly decided on the evidence.,

Judgment affirmed.

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

Elliott, C. J.

Counsel for appellee affirm that there is no certificate to the transcript, but in this they are in error. There is a certificate of all papers ordered by the appellant, and they ■show on their face a complete record of the case. Where there is a certificate of the clerk, properly worded and authenticated, showing that all the papers in the case ordered by the appellant are embodied in the record, and the papers show on their face that the record is full, correct and complete, no more is needed.

Counsel are also in error in asserting that the record does not show that interrogatories were submitted to the jury, for an entry appears in the record showing their submission by the court. It is not necessary that the interrogatories to the jury, and their answers should be incorporated in a bill of exceptions. Salander v. Lockwood, 66 Ind. 285. The case just cited overruled Shaw v. Merchants Nat’l Bank, 60 Ind. 83, where a different rule was declared. The rule adopted in [242]*242Salander v. Lockwood, supra, had been previously affirmed in Campbell v. Dutch, 36 Ind. 504, and was approved in Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v. Clark, 73 Ind. 168. This ease is, therefore, not within the rule in The Cleveland, etc., R. W. Co. v. Bowen, 70 Ind. 478.

Filed Sept. 24, 1884.

We are unable to see how the interrogatory objected to-worked appellant any injury, as the general verdict was against him, and on that the judgment is founded. If it were conceded that the court erred in propounding the interrogatory,, it is clear that the error-was a harmless one, and such an error will not warrant a reversal. ’

Submitting an interrogatory to a jury is not the expression of an opinion upon the evidence. The court expresses no-opinion one way or the other, but simply directs the jury to answer a question.

We think the cause was correctly decided on the evidence.,

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 Ind. 241, 1884 Ind. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boots-v-griffiths-ind-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack