Earnest v. Shoemaker

Indiana Court of Appeals

Earnest v. Shoemaker

38 N.E. 543, 10 Ind. App. 696, 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 209

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 1894

Docket1,296

StatusPublished

This text of 38 N.E. 543 (Earnest v. Shoemaker) 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

Earnest v. Shoemaker, 38 N.E. 543, 10 Ind. App. 696, 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Ross, J.

The errors assigned by appellant for a reversal of the judgment of the court below are as follows:

“1st. The court erred in overruling the separate demurrer of appellant to the complaint in said cause.

“2nd. The court erred in overruling the demurrer of appellant to each specification of plaintiff’s complaint.

“3d. The court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.’’

Counsel have urged with great earnestness each of the rulings questioned by the above assignments, but we regret to say that the record as it comes to us presents none of the questions which they have urged for our consideration. After a careful examination of the record we [697]*697fail to find either the complaint or motion for a new trial referred to. The record discloses “that on the 13th day of February, 1892, the plaintiff, by his attorney, filed in the office of the clerk of the Jay Circuit Court, his complaint in the above entitled cause,” but there is no complaint’ copied into the record. Again, the record recites that on the 31st day of March, 1893, the defendants “file their motions for a new trial,” but neither motion nor causes are copied into the record. "With neither the complaint nor the motion for a new trial in the record, there is nothing before us for consideration under the errors assigned.

Filed Oct. 31, 1894.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Ross, J.

The errors assigned by appellant for a reversal of the judgment of the court below are as follows:

“1st. The court erred in overruling the separate demurrer of appellant to the complaint in said cause.

“2nd. The court erred in overruling the demurrer of appellant to each specification of plaintiff’s complaint.

“3d. The court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.’’

Counsel have urged with great earnestness each of the rulings questioned by the above assignments, but we regret to say that the record as it comes to us presents none of the questions which they have urged for our consideration. After a careful examination of the record we [697]*697fail to find either the complaint or motion for a new trial referred to. The record discloses “that on the 13th day of February, 1892, the plaintiff, by his attorney, filed in the office of the clerk of the Jay Circuit Court, his complaint in the above entitled cause,” but there is no complaint’ copied into the record. Again, the record recites that on the 31st day of March, 1893, the defendants “file their motions for a new trial,” but neither motion nor causes are copied into the record. "With neither the complaint nor the motion for a new trial in the record, there is nothing before us for consideration under the errors assigned.

Filed Oct. 31, 1894.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.E. 543, 10 Ind. App. 696, 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earnest-v-shoemaker-indctapp-1894.