Martindale v. Corbin

Indiana Court of Appeals

Martindale v. Corbin

145 N.E. 926, 82 Ind. App. 324, 1924 Ind. App. LEXIS 175

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1924

DocketNo. 11,929.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 145 N.E. 926 (Martindale v. Corbin) 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

Martindale v. Corbin, 145 N.E. 926, 82 Ind. App. 324, 1924 Ind. App. LEXIS 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only proper assignment of error relates to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial. Each specification in this motion requires a consideration of the evidence. Appellee calls attention to the fact that appellants have not set out a concise statement of the evidence in their brief and insists that no question is presented for our determination. The decisions of the Supreme and this court sustaining appellee's contention as to each specification in the motion for a new trial are numerous and *325 decisive. See Clemens v. Stoner, Exr. (1920), 73 Ind. App. 370; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Retz (1919), 71 Ind. App. 581, 585, 586; Leedy v. Idle, Trustee (1918), 69 Ind. App. 105, 107; Webster v. Bligh (1912), 50 Ind. App. 56; Jeffersonville School Tp. v. School City, etc. (1911), 50 Ind. App. 178, 182; Rose v. City of Jeffersonville (1916), 185 Ind. 577, 579 ; McClellan v. Thomas (1915), 183 Ind. 310 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hayes (1913), 181 Ind. 87, 107 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen (1913), 179 Ind. 142, 145 ; Huffman v. Thompson (1912), 177 Ind. 366, 368 ; Washington Hotel Realty Co. v. Bedford Stone, etc., Co. (1924), 195 Ind. 128, 143 N. E. 156 ; Gary, etc., R. Co. v. Hacker (1915), 58 Ind. App. 618, 620.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The only proper assignment of error relates to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial. Each specification in this motion requires a consideration of the evidence. Appellee calls attention to the fact that appellants have not set out a concise statement of the evidence in their brief and insists that no question is presented for our determination. The decisions of the Supreme and this court sustaining appellee's contention as to each specification in the motion for a new trial are numerous and *325 decisive. See Clemens v. Stoner, Exr. (1920), 73 Ind. App. 370; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Retz (1919), 71 Ind. App. 581, 585, 586; Leedy v. Idle, Trustee (1918), 69 Ind. App. 105, 107; Webster v. Bligh (1912), 50 Ind. App. 56; Jeffersonville School Tp. v. School City, etc. (1911), 50 Ind. App. 178, 182; Rose v. City of Jeffersonville (1916), 185 Ind. 577, 579 ; McClellan v. Thomas (1915), 183 Ind. 310 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hayes (1913), 181 Ind. 87, 107 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen (1913), 179 Ind. 142, 145 ; Huffman v. Thompson (1912), 177 Ind. 366, 368 ; Washington Hotel Realty Co. v. Bedford Stone, etc., Co. (1924), 195 Ind. 128, 143 N. E. 156 ; Gary, etc., R. Co. v. Hacker (1915), 58 Ind. App. 618, 620.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 N.E. 926, 82 Ind. App. 324, 1924 Ind. App. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martindale-v-corbin-indctapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack