McDaniel v. Mattingly
72 Ind. 349
Opinion
— The affidavits on which the appellant claims, a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence,, are not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.. Counsel claim no other error. The judgment must therefore be affirmed. Williams v. Potter, post, p. 354; Matlook v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130; Horton v. Wilson, 25 Ind. 316; Burnett v. Overton, 67 Ind. 557; Fryberger v. Perkins, 66 Ind. 19; Berlin v. Oglesbee, 65 Ind. 308; Buskirk’s Practice, 241.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McDaniel v. Mattingly, 72 Ind. 349 (Ind. 1880).
72 Ind. 349 (McDaniel v. Mattingly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Greenwalt v. State
209 N.E.2d 254 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1965)
Rains v. State
36 N.E. 532 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Heltonville Manufacturing Co. v. Fields
36 N.E. 529 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Rees v. Blackwell
33 N.E. 988 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Zehner v. Aultman
74 Ind. 24 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Lawless v. Harrington
75 Ind. 379 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Wood v. Crane
75 Ind. 207 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Swift v. Ratliff
74 Ind. 426 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Elbert v. Hoby
73 Ind. 111 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1880)