Cronin v. Logansport Daily Reporter Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Cronin v. Logansport Daily Reporter Co.

98 N.E. 303, 50 Ind. App. 263, 1912 Ind. App. LEXIS 31

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 1912

DocketNo. 7,591

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 N.E. 303 (Cronin v. Logansport Daily Reporter Co.) 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

Cronin v. Logansport Daily Reporter Co., 98 N.E. 303, 50 Ind. App. 263, 1912 Ind. App. LEXIS 31 (Ind. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, J.

— The errors assigned and relied on for reversal in this cause are that the court erred (1) in overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance, and (2) in overruling appellant’s motion to reinstate said cause.

1. The overruling of a motion for a continuance is cause for a new trial, but cannot be made an independent assignment or error, and when so assigned, no question is presented. Arbuckle v. McCoy (1876), 53 Ind. 63; Westerfield v. Spencer (1878), 61 Ind. 339; Hutts v. Shoaf (1882), 88 Ind. 395.

2. Appellant has waived the second specification of error, by failing to set out in her brief the motion to reinstate, or the substance thereof. She has also failed tb state any point or proposition of law, and has cited no authority supporting this specification of error. Pitts[264]*264burgh, etc., R. Co. v. Collins (1907), 168 Ind. 467, 472, 80 N. E. 415.

There being no question presented for decision by this conrt, the judgment is affirmed.

Lairy, J., not participating.

Note. — Reported in 98 N. E. 303. See, also, under (1) 2 Cyc. 999; (2) 2 Cyc. 1014. As to when denial of motion for a continuance is error, see 47 Am. Dec. 101.

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