Masters v. George E. Thompson Lightning Rod Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Masters v. George E. Thompson Lightning Rod Co.

171 N.E. 19, 91 Ind. App. 262, 1930 Ind. App. LEXIS 60

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1930

DocketNo. 13,575.

StatusPublished

This text of 171 N.E. 19 (Masters v. George E. Thompson Lightning Rod Co.) 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

Masters v. George E. Thompson Lightning Rod Co., 171 N.E. 19, 91 Ind. App. 262, 1930 Ind. App. LEXIS 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, J.

The error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial, the correctness of which ruling depends upon the evidence, which appellee insists is not in the record. The motion for a new trial was overruled September 27, 1928, judgment having previously been rendered. An exception was taken to such ruling at the time, but no time was given for presenting a bill of exceptions. Several days later, time was given, but the bill was not presented until long after the expiration of the term of court when the motion was overruled. On authority of Citizens St. R. Co. v. Marvil (1903), 161 Ind. 506, 67 N. E. 921, we hold the evidence is not in the record, and that no question is presented relative to the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McMahan, J.

The error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial, the correctness of which ruling depends upon the evidence, which appellee insists is not in the record. The motion for a new trial was overruled September 27, 1928, judgment having previously been rendered. An exception was taken to such ruling at the time, but no time was given for presenting a bill of exceptions. Several days later, time was given, but the bill was not presented until long after the expiration of the term of court when the motion was overruled. On authority of Citizens St. R. Co. v. Marvil (1903), 161 Ind. 506, 67 N. E. 921, we hold the evidence is not in the record, and that no question is presented relative to the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 N.E. 19, 91 Ind. App. 262, 1930 Ind. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masters-v-george-e-thompson-lightning-rod-co-indctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack