Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Elliott

Indiana Court of Appeals

Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Elliott

141 N.E. 652, 80 Ind. App. 596, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 181

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 14, 1923

DocketNo. 11,643

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 N.E. 652 (Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Elliott) 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

Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Elliott, 141 N.E. 652, 80 Ind. App. 596, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Remy, C. J.

The trial court overruled appellant’s motions asking for a new trial and for a modification of the judgment. These rulings are assigned as errors. The only reason for a new trial presented is that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence. We do not deem it necessary to discuss the evidence; it is enough to say that we have carefully examined the same,- and find that the court’s decision is in all things sustained thereby.

The motion to modify the judgment was not to correct a mere clerical error, but called for a material alteration of an essential judicatory part of the judgment. Such a motion must be made during the term of court at which the judgment was rendered. Cauthorn v. Bierhaus (1909), 44 Ind. App. 362, 88 N. E. 314; Johnson v. Foreman (1900), 24 Ind. App. 93, 56 N. E. 254; Union Trust Co. v. Curtis (1914), 182 Ind. 61, 105 N. E. 562, L. R. A. 1915A 699. The judgment was rendered May 5, 1922. The motion to modify was not filed until September 12, 1922, which was at a subsequent term of court. The court did not err in overruling the motion.

Affirmed.

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

Remy, C. J.

The trial court overruled appellant’s motions asking for a new trial and for a modification of the judgment. These rulings are assigned as errors. The only reason for a new trial presented is that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence. We do not deem it necessary to discuss the evidence; it is enough to say that we have carefully examined the same,- and find that the court’s decision is in all things sustained thereby.

The motion to modify the judgment was not to correct a mere clerical error, but called for a material alteration of an essential judicatory part of the judgment. Such a motion must be made during the term of court at which the judgment was rendered. Cauthorn v. Bierhaus (1909), 44 Ind. App. 362, 88 N. E. 314; Johnson v. Foreman (1900), 24 Ind. App. 93, 56 N. E. 254; Union Trust Co. v. Curtis (1914), 182 Ind. 61, 105 N. E. 562, L. R. A. 1915A 699. The judgment was rendered May 5, 1922. The motion to modify was not filed until September 12, 1922, which was at a subsequent term of court. The court did not err in overruling the motion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 N.E. 652, 80 Ind. App. 596, 1923 Ind. App. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-merchants-national-bank-v-elliott-indctapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack