Cully v. Imell

Indiana Supreme Court

Cully v. Imell

8 Ind. 456

DecidedJanuary 13, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ind. 456 (Cully v. Imell) 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

Cully v. Imell, 8 Ind. 456 (Ind. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bill of exceptions closes — “This was all the evidence material to the cause” — leaving it to be inferred that there was in fact other evidence. In this form, we cannot regard the evidence as embraced in the record within the thirtieth rule.

The case then stands precisely like the case of the Indiana and Oxford Plankroad Company v. Doty, at the present term. For the reasons there given, the judgment below must be approved.

J. F. Gardner and G. W. Julian, for the appellant. ./. Yaryan, for the appellee.

The judgment is affirmed with 10 per cent, damages and costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The bill of exceptions closes — “This was all the evidence material to the cause” — leaving it to be inferred that there was in fact other evidence. In this form, we cannot regard the evidence as embraced in the record within the thirtieth rule.

The case then stands precisely like the case of the Indiana and Oxford Plankroad Company v. Doty, at the present term. For the reasons there given, the judgment below must be approved.

J. F. Gardner and G. W. Julian, for the appellant. ./. Yaryan, for the appellee.

The judgment is affirmed with 10 per cent, damages and costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Ind. 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cully-v-imell-ind-1857.