Freeze v. DePuy

57 Ind. 188
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 57 Ind. 188 (Freeze v. DePuy) 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
Freeze v. DePuy, 57 Ind. 188 (Ind. 1877).

Opinion

Howk, J.

The only alleged error of the court below, assigned by the appellant in this court, is thus stated:

“ The court erred in refusing charges asked to be given by the plaintiff to the jury.”

This alleged error presents no question whatever for our consideration. The matter stated therein was a proper cause for a new trial, in a motion therefor addressed to the court below; but it can not be assigned as an independent error in this court. This rule of practice has long prevailed in this court, and is so well established that it needs no citation of authorities to support it. “ The assignment of the causes for a new trial as error is not the proper mode of raising any question embraced in the motion for a new trial.” Buskirk Prac., p. 126, and the authorities there cited.

[189]*189But, if this objection to the assignment of error was waived, it would be of no avail to the appellant in this •ease. The record of this cause does.not contain either the evidence on the trial or the instructions of the court below to the jury trying the cause. It may well have been, therefore, and we will so presume in favor of the •decision of the court below, that the instructions asked for by the appellant were properly excluded by the court, upon the ground either that the instructions were not .applicable to the case made by the evidence, or that they had been substantially given by the court, of its own motion and in its own language. In either of these events, the court below would not have erred in refusing the charges asked for.

We find no available error in the record.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, at the appellant’s costs.

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

Related

Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. Engine v. Smith
52 N.E. 106 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1898)
Silver v. Parr
17 N.E. 114 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1888)
Stewart v. State
13 N.E. 59 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Stephenson v. State
11 N.E. 360 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Weir Plow Co. v. Walmsley
11 N.E. 232 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Everson v. Seller
4 N.E. 854 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Frank v. Grimes
4 N.E. 414 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Baltimore & Ohio & Chicago Railroad v. Rowan
3 N.E. 627 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
North Western Mutual Life Insurance v. Heimann
93 Ind. 24 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Town of Princeton v. Gieske
93 Ind. 102 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Ehlert v. State
93 Ind. 76 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Holmes v. State
88 Ind. 145 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Powers v. State
87 Ind. 144 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Williams v. Riley
88 Ind. 290 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Coffing v. Hardy
86 Ind. 369 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Ramsey v. Rushville & Milroy Gravel Road Co.
81 Ind. 394 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Bake v. Smiley
84 Ind. 212 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Wright v. Abbott
85 Ind. 154 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Cole v. Kidd
80 Ind. 563 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Smith v. Martin
80 Ind. 260 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 Ind. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeze-v-depuy-ind-1877.