Cart v. Fleming

Indiana Court of Appeals

Cart v. Fleming

88 N.E.2d 577, 119 Ind. App. 690, 1949 Ind. App. LEXIS 213

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 21, 1949

DocketNo. 17,935.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 N.E.2d 577 (Cart v. Fleming) 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

Cart v. Fleming, 88 N.E.2d 577, 119 Ind. App. 690, 1949 Ind. App. LEXIS 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Bowen, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants in an action to recover damages on an at-' tachment bond. The error assigned for reversal is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial. The sole ground of the motion for a new trial is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

It has been held in many decisions of this court and the Supreme Court of this State, that where a verdict is negative, an assignment of error in a motion for a new trial that a verdict against a party having the burden of proof is not sustained by sufficient evidence presents no question. Such decisions point out that the proper way to challenge such a negative verdict is by an assignment that such verdict is contrary to law. Skelton v. Bank’s Estate (1945), 116 *692 Ind App. 280, 63 N. E. 2d 546; Walder v. Mogul Rubber Corp. (1945), 116 Ind. App. 152, 61 N. E. 2d 472; Dept. of Ins. v. Indiana Trav. Assur. Co. (1945), 115 Ind. App. 285, 58 N. E. 2d 761; McKee v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1943), 222 Ind. 10, 51 N. E. 2d 474; Wilson v. Rollings (1937), 214 Ind. 155, 14 N. E. 2d 905; Warren Co. v. Exodus (1943), 114 Ind. App. 651, 54 N. E. 2d 775; Smith, Execrx. v. Strock, Execr. (1944), 115 Ind. App. 518, 60 N. E. 2d 157; Scoopmire v. Taflinger (1944), 114 Ind. App. 419, 52 N. E. 2d 728; Myers v. Brane (1944), 115 Ind. App. 144, 57 N. E. 2d 594; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Starks (1915), 58 Ind. App. 341, 106 N. E. 646.

We feel that' the modern tendency is toward greater liberality in the construction of rules of procedure as reflected in the later opinions of this court and the Supreme Court to the end that causes presented by party litigants may be decided upon their merits. Nevertheless, we feel that we are constrained to follow the ruling precedent of the Supreme Court in the instant case, and we, therefore, hold that no question is presented by appellant’s assignment of error in the overruling of his motion for a new trial, which in turn assigns the sole ground that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Wiltrout, P. J., not participating.

NOTE. — Reported in 88 N. E. 2d 577.

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

Bowen, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants in an action to recover damages on an at-' tachment bond. The error assigned for reversal is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial. The sole ground of the motion for a new trial is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

It has been held in many decisions of this court and the Supreme Court of this State, that where a verdict is negative, an assignment of error in a motion for a new trial that a verdict against a party having the burden of proof is not sustained by sufficient evidence presents no question. Such decisions point out that the proper way to challenge such a negative verdict is by an assignment that such verdict is contrary to law. Skelton v. Bank’s Estate (1945), 116 *692 Ind App. 280, 63 N. E. 2d 546; Walder v. Mogul Rubber Corp. (1945), 116 Ind. App. 152, 61 N. E. 2d 472; Dept. of Ins. v. Indiana Trav. Assur. Co. (1945), 115 Ind. App. 285, 58 N. E. 2d 761; McKee v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1943), 222 Ind. 10, 51 N. E. 2d 474; Wilson v. Rollings (1937), 214 Ind. 155, 14 N. E. 2d 905; Warren Co. v. Exodus (1943), 114 Ind. App. 651, 54 N. E. 2d 775; Smith, Execrx. v. Strock, Execr. (1944), 115 Ind. App. 518, 60 N. E. 2d 157; Scoopmire v. Taflinger (1944), 114 Ind. App. 419, 52 N. E. 2d 728; Myers v. Brane (1944), 115 Ind. App. 144, 57 N. E. 2d 594; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Starks (1915), 58 Ind. App. 341, 106 N. E. 646.

We feel that' the modern tendency is toward greater liberality in the construction of rules of procedure as reflected in the later opinions of this court and the Supreme Court to the end that causes presented by party litigants may be decided upon their merits. Nevertheless, we feel that we are constrained to follow the ruling precedent of the Supreme Court in the instant case, and we, therefore, hold that no question is presented by appellant’s assignment of error in the overruling of his motion for a new trial, which in turn assigns the sole ground that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Wiltrout, P. J., not participating.

NOTE. — Reported in 88 N. E. 2d 577.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.E.2d 577, 119 Ind. App. 690, 1949 Ind. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cart-v-fleming-indctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack