Ernsting v. Stegman

Indiana Court of Appeals

Ernsting v. Stegman

156 N.E. 520, 86 Ind. App. 213, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 82

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 18, 1927

DocketNo. 12,861.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 N.E. 520 (Ernsting v. Stegman) 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

Ernsting v. Stegman, 156 N.E. 520, 86 Ind. App. 213, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, C. J. —

Appellants have attempted to present two questions: (1) Error in overruling their motion in arrest of judgment; and (2) in overruling

their motion for a new trial. Inasmuch as all the reasons assigned in support of the motion in arrest of judgment all relate to the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action, the court did not err in overruling such motion. All objections to the complaint for the reasons stated were waived by a failure to demur thereto. Malone, Trustee, v. Kitchen (1922), 79 Ind. App. 119, 137 N. E. 562.

*214 All questions attempted to be presented by the second assignment of error require a consideration of the evidence, which is not in the record. The motion for a new trial was overruled May 8, 1926, but no time was given within which to file a bill of exceptions. On May 15, 1926, after the overruling of the motion in arrest, time was given beyond the term within which to file a bill of exceptions. The bill was not filed within the term, and for that reason the evidence is not in the record. See Tozer, Admr., v. Hobbs’ Estate (1923), 79 Ind. App. 258, 137 N. E. 715.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McMahan, C. J. —

Appellants have attempted to present two questions: (1) Error in overruling their motion in arrest of judgment; and (2) in overruling

their motion for a new trial. Inasmuch as all the reasons assigned in support of the motion in arrest of judgment all relate to the sufficiency of the facts alleged to state a cause of action, the court did not err in overruling such motion. All objections to the complaint for the reasons stated were waived by a failure to demur thereto. Malone, Trustee, v. Kitchen (1922), 79 Ind. App. 119, 137 N. E. 562.

*214 All questions attempted to be presented by the second assignment of error require a consideration of the evidence, which is not in the record. The motion for a new trial was overruled May 8, 1926, but no time was given within which to file a bill of exceptions. On May 15, 1926, after the overruling of the motion in arrest, time was given beyond the term within which to file a bill of exceptions. The bill was not filed within the term, and for that reason the evidence is not in the record. See Tozer, Admr., v. Hobbs’ Estate (1923), 79 Ind. App. 258, 137 N. E. 715.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.E. 520, 86 Ind. App. 213, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernsting-v-stegman-indctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack