McDaniel v. Mattingly

Indiana Supreme Court

McDaniel v. Mattingly

1 Ind. L. Rep. 129

DecidedMarch 29, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ind. L. Rep. 129 (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, 1 Ind. L. Rep. 129 (Ind. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Mr. Justice Woods.

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, (at this term); Matlock v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130; Horton v. Wilson, 25 Ind. 316; Burnett v. Overton, 67 Ind. 557; Fryherger v. Perkins, 66 Ind. 19; Burlin v. Oglesbee etal., 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

Opinion of the court by

Mr. Justice Woods.

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, (at this term); Matlock v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130; Horton v. Wilson, 25 Ind. 316; Burnett v. Overton, 67 Ind. 557; Fryherger v. Perkins, 66 Ind. 19; Burlin v. Oglesbee etal., 65 Ind. 308; Buskirk’s Practice, 241.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ind. L. Rep. 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-mattingly-ind-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack