Ferger v. Wesler

35 Ind. 53
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 35 Ind. 53 (Ferger v. Wesler) 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
Ferger v. Wesler, 35 Ind. 53 (Ind. 1871).

Opinion

Pettit, J.

Appellee recovered against the appellant a judgment for the possession of real estate. Within a year of the rendition of the judgment, the appellant paid the costs and filed in the cleric’s office a motion for a new trial, as of course, under section 601 of the code, and gave notice that said motion would be heard before the judge in vacation. [54]*54The judge refused to grant the new trial in vacation. This is assigned for error, but it was not error. The section cited says, the court shall vacate the judgment and grant a new trial. When a law authorizes or contemplates the doing of a judicial act, it is and must be understood to mean that the court, in term time, may or must do it, and the judge, in vacation, cannot, unless the power is expressly conferred upon him.” Reyburn v. Bassett, McCahon, 86.

y. Schwartz, for appellant. W. H. Bainbridge and F. Adkmson, for appellee.

Thus matters rested till more than a year after the rendition of the judgment, when the appellant'moved the court in term time, on the written application filed in vacation, to vacate the judgment and grant him a new trial, as of right. The appellee objected to the new trial, for the reason thafmore than one year had elapsed since the final judgment was rendered; and the court sustained the objection, and overruled the motion for a new trial. This ruling is assigned for error. There was no error in this. The party who seeks a new trial under section 601 of the code, must pay the costs, make application to the court, get its order granting a new trial, or its refusal to do so, within one year after the judgment is rendered, or he will be too late in such a proceeding as this.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.

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

Related

Hyland v. Rochelle
100 N.E. 842 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1913)
Vandalia Coal Co. v. Yemm
92 N.E. 49 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
State v. Hindman
65 N.E. 911 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1903)
Backer v. Eble
43 N.E. 233 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1896)
Pressley v. Lamb
4 N.E. 682 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Powers v. Mitchell
75 Me. 364 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1883)
Cox v. Dill
85 Ind. 334 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Cain v. Goda
84 Ind. 209 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Batten v. State
80 Ind. 394 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Powell v. Bunger
79 Ind. 468 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Golden v. Snellen
54 Ind. 282 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)
Newman v. Hammond
46 Ind. 119 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 Ind. 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferger-v-wesler-ind-1871.