Meloy v. Weathers

Indiana Court of Appeals

Meloy v. Weathers

73 N.E. 924, 35 Ind. App. 165, 1905 Ind. App. LEXIS 69

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 1905

DocketNo. 5,286

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 73 N.E. 924 (Meloy v. Weathers) 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

Meloy v. Weathers, 73 N.E. 924, 35 Ind. App. 165, 1905 Ind. App. LEXIS 69 (Ind. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Comstock, C. J.

Appellant filed with the board of commissioners of Crawford county his application for license to retail intoxicating liquors, describing the premises where he desired to sell. Appellees at the proper time filed with said board a remonstrance against the granting of said license. The board of commissioners decided the issue in favor of appellant. Appellees appealed to the Crawford Circuit Court, where the case was tried by the court, and judgment rendered in favor of appellees, dismissing appellant’s application, and rendering judgment against him in favor of appellees for costs.

The only error argued by appellant upon this appeal is the refusal of the trial court to submit the cause to a jury. Said alleged error is attempted to.be presented by a separate specification of error. As claimed by appellees, such specification can not be considered, because it should be set out as a reason for a new trial. Such question can not be presented by an independent assignment of error. Allee v. State, ex rel. (1881), 76 Ind. 94; Childers v. First Nat. Bank (1897), 147 Ind. 430; Ketcham v. Brazil Block Coal Co.(1883), 88 Ind. 515; Abbott v. Inman (1904), post, 262.

A motion for a new trial was filed, but the action of the court in refusing a jury is not made one of the reasons therefor.

Counsel for appellees insist that the appeal should be dismissed because the record does not comply with the rules of this court. The conclusion readied renders it unnecessary to consider this claim of appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Comstock, C. J.

Appellant filed with the board of commissioners of Crawford county his application for license to retail intoxicating liquors, describing the premises where he desired to sell. Appellees at the proper time filed with said board a remonstrance against the granting of said license. The board of commissioners decided the issue in favor of appellant. Appellees appealed to the Crawford Circuit Court, where the case was tried by the court, and judgment rendered in favor of appellees, dismissing appellant’s application, and rendering judgment against him in favor of appellees for costs.

The only error argued by appellant upon this appeal is the refusal of the trial court to submit the cause to a jury. Said alleged error is attempted to.be presented by a separate specification of error. As claimed by appellees, such specification can not be considered, because it should be set out as a reason for a new trial. Such question can not be presented by an independent assignment of error. Allee v. State, ex rel. (1881), 76 Ind. 94; Childers v. First Nat. Bank (1897), 147 Ind. 430; Ketcham v. Brazil Block Coal Co.(1883), 88 Ind. 515; Abbott v. Inman (1904), post, 262.

A motion for a new trial was filed, but the action of the court in refusing a jury is not made one of the reasons therefor.

Counsel for appellees insist that the appeal should be dismissed because the record does not comply with the rules of this court. The conclusion readied renders it unnecessary to consider this claim of appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 N.E. 924, 35 Ind. App. 165, 1905 Ind. App. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meloy-v-weathers-indctapp-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack