Citizens Insurance v. Harris

9 N.E. 299, 108 Ind. 392, 1886 Ind. LEXIS 247
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 9, 1886
DocketNo. 13,371
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 9 N.E. 299 (Citizens Insurance v. Harris) 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
Citizens Insurance v. Harris, 9 N.E. 299, 108 Ind. 392, 1886 Ind. LEXIS 247 (Ind. 1886).

Opinion

Elliott, C. J.

No demurrer was filed to the appellee^ complaint at the special term, and the specification in the as[393]*393signment of errors, that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint, has no foundation.

Filed Dec. 9, 1886.

The case is not within the statute concerning agreed cases, for it is an ordinary action at law with' an agreement as to the facts. There is an essential difference between an agreed case and a case where the trial takes place upon an agreed statement of facts. Oppenheim v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co., 85 Ind. 471, see p. 477 and authorities cited; Zeller v. City of Crawfordsville, 90 Ind. 262; Pennsylvania Co. v. Niblack, 99 Ind. 149.

The agreement as to the facts in a case not an agreed one under the statute, is mere evidence and nothing more. A recital in the agreement that the facts are embodied in it is not, as was said in Martin v. Martin, 74 Ind. 207, a substitute for the bill of exceptions; whereas, in an agreed case under the statute, neither pleadings nor bills of exception are required. Here, the agreement as to the facts is but an agreement as to what the evidence would establish, and it is only in the record by force of the bill of exceptions. But, while the agreement as to the facts is in the record, there is no statement in the bill showing that it contains all the evidence, and as there can be no decision of the questions presented without a consideration of all the evidence, it must be held that the appeal fails. It has long been the rule that, unless the record affirmatively shows that all the evidence is in the bill of exceptions, no question requiring a consideration of the entire evidence is presented.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Frank
259 N.E.2d 706 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1970)
Miller v. Wabash Fire & Casualty Insurance
193 N.E.2d 917 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1963)
State of Indiana v. Howe
110 N.E.2d 633 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1953)
Aubain v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America
115 N.E. 78 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
National Bank of Commerce v. Pick
99 N.W. 63 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1904)
Wright v. Shelt
48 N.E. 26 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
Morrison v. Morrison
43 N.E. 437 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1896)
Sweet v. Myers
53 N.W. 187 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1892)
Witz v. Dale
27 N.E. 498 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 N.E. 299, 108 Ind. 392, 1886 Ind. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-insurance-v-harris-ind-1886.