McDaniel v. Mattingly

Indiana Supreme Court

McDaniel v. Mattingly

72 Ind. 349

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1880

DocketNo. 7882

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 72 Ind. 349 (McDaniel v. Mattingly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McDaniel v. Mattingly, 72 Ind. 349 (Ind. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Woods, J.

— 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

Woods, J.

— 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Ind. 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-mattingly-ind-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack