Hamilton v. Pattison

Indiana Court of Appeals

Hamilton v. Pattison

157 N.E. 57, 86 Ind. App. 269, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 94

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 1927

DocketNo. 12,886.

StatusPublished

This text of 157 N.E. 57 (Hamilton v. Pattison) 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

Hamilton v. Pattison, 157 N.E. 57, 86 Ind. App. 269, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 94 (Ind. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, J. —

This is a suit to contest the last will and testament of Margaret E. Hamilton, deceased. There was a complaint by appellants Hamilton and Row and a cross-complaint by appellant Kleinsmith, a defendant in the action below, both contesting the will of said decedent, and both answering in general denial. The issues were submitted to a jury for trial and a verdict rendered upholding the will, on which judgment was rendered. The error presented is the court’s action in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial which presents only the misconduct of a juror. The alleged misconduct complained of consisted of statements made by the juror on his voir dire to the effect that he was not acquainted with any of the parties to the suit, when, as claimed by appellants, he was well *270 acquainted with, one of the appellees and with his family.

There were affidavits and counter-affidavits. Under such circumstances, the decision of the trial court will not be reviewed by this court. Roose v. Roose (1896), 145 Ind. 162, 44 N. E. 1; Rosenberg v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 485, 490, 134 N. E. 856, 137 N. E. 53.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Nichols, J. —

This is a suit to contest the last will and testament of Margaret E. Hamilton, deceased. There was a complaint by appellants Hamilton and Row and a cross-complaint by appellant Kleinsmith, a defendant in the action below, both contesting the will of said decedent, and both answering in general denial. The issues were submitted to a jury for trial and a verdict rendered upholding the will, on which judgment was rendered. The error presented is the court’s action in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial which presents only the misconduct of a juror. The alleged misconduct complained of consisted of statements made by the juror on his voir dire to the effect that he was not acquainted with any of the parties to the suit, when, as claimed by appellants, he was well *270 acquainted with, one of the appellees and with his family.

There were affidavits and counter-affidavits. Under such circumstances, the decision of the trial court will not be reviewed by this court. Roose v. Roose (1896), 145 Ind. 162, 44 N. E. 1; Rosenberg v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 485, 490, 134 N. E. 856, 137 N. E. 53.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.E. 57, 86 Ind. App. 269, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-pattison-indctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack