McSheely v. Bentley

31 Ind. 235
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 31 Ind. 235 (McSheely v. Bentley) 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
McSheely v. Bentley, 31 Ind. 235 (Ind. 1869).

Opinion

Ray, J.

This was an action of ejectment by the appellee against the appellant. Trial, and finding and judgment for the plaintiff below. A motion for a new trial was presented as follows:

“ Comes now the defendant, and shows to the court that he has paid all the costs herein, and now moves that the court vacate the judgment herein and grant a new trial of this cause, as a matter of right.”

There were also reasons assigned for a new trial, but they are not presented in'this court.

The motion was overruled. We cannot say that there was error. The recital in the motion, that the costs were paid, is no evidence of the fact. Proof of their payment presented to the court below, we must presume, would have secured all the relief to which the defendant was entitled.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Claflin v. Cottman
77 Ind. 58 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Blizzard v. Blizzard
40 Ind. 344 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Skillen v. Skillen
41 Ind. 122 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1872)
Emmons v. Newman
38 Ind. 372 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. First National Bank
33 Ind. 302 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Ind. 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcsheely-v-bentley-ind-1869.