Hood v. Porthauer

Indiana Court of Appeals

Hood v. Porthauer

182 N.E. 90, 94 Ind. App. 680, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 208

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 27, 1932

DocketNo. 14,448.

StatusPublished

This text of 182 N.E. 90 (Hood v. Porthauer) 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

Hood v. Porthauer, 182 N.E. 90, 94 Ind. App. 680, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Neal, J.

Action by Harry Porthauer against R. A. Hood for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of defendant’s negligence in the operation of his automobile. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff from which *681 defendant appeals and assigns as his only error the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

Appellant, in this court, relies exclusively on the giving of instruction 14, for a reversal of the judgment herein. But appellant attempts to bring the instructions into the record in this court by including therein the original bill of exceptions instead of a copy of such bill. It has been held that this court cannot consider the instructions when the same are brought into the record in this manner. Mitchell, Exr., v. Bissenherz (1922), 192 Ind. 587, 135 N. E. 885. Upon the authority of this case, we hold that since the only question appellant attempts to raise relates to the instructions, which are not in the record, that no question is presented for our consideration. See also Woods v. Koga et al. (1929), 90 Ind. App. 401, 166 N. E. 601; Seibert v. State (1929), 89 Ind. App. 604, 167 N. E. 542.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Neal, J.

Action by Harry Porthauer against R. A. Hood for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of defendant’s negligence in the operation of his automobile. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff from which *681 defendant appeals and assigns as his only error the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

Appellant, in this court, relies exclusively on the giving of instruction 14, for a reversal of the judgment herein. But appellant attempts to bring the instructions into the record in this court by including therein the original bill of exceptions instead of a copy of such bill. It has been held that this court cannot consider the instructions when the same are brought into the record in this manner. Mitchell, Exr., v. Bissenherz (1922), 192 Ind. 587, 135 N. E. 885. Upon the authority of this case, we hold that since the only question appellant attempts to raise relates to the instructions, which are not in the record, that no question is presented for our consideration. See also Woods v. Koga et al. (1929), 90 Ind. App. 401, 166 N. E. 601; Seibert v. State (1929), 89 Ind. App. 604, 167 N. E. 542.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 N.E. 90, 94 Ind. App. 680, 1932 Ind. App. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-porthauer-indctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack