Meyer v. Meyer

Indiana Court of Appeals

Meyer v. Meyer

129 N.E. 340, 74 Ind. App. 699, 1921 Ind. App. LEXIS 149

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 4, 1921

DocketNo. 10,478

StatusPublished

This text of 129 N.E. 340 (Meyer v. Meyer) 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

Meyer v. Meyer, 129 N.E. 340, 74 Ind. App. 699, 1921 Ind. App. LEXIS 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, J.

Appellee filed a claim for services rendered her [700]*700mother, Fredericka Meyer, during her lifetime. The cause has been twice tried by jury. On the first trial there was a verdict in favor of appellee for $555. A new trial having been granted, the jury on the second trial returned a verdict for $1,200. Judgment was rendered for $1,200. The only contention made by appellant is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in Wainwright Trust Co., Admr., v. Kinder (1918), 69 Ind. App. 88, 120 N. E. 419, where the authorities applicable are collected.

It is not necessary for us to discuss the law or to set out the evidence. We have given both the law and the evidence careful consideration, and hold that under the law as stated in the case cited, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. There was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

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

McMahan, J.

Appellee filed a claim for services rendered her [700]*700mother, Fredericka Meyer, during her lifetime. The cause has been twice tried by jury. On the first trial there was a verdict in favor of appellee for $555. A new trial having been granted, the jury on the second trial returned a verdict for $1,200. Judgment was rendered for $1,200. The only contention made by appellant is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in Wainwright Trust Co., Admr., v. Kinder (1918), 69 Ind. App. 88, 120 N. E. 419, where the authorities applicable are collected.

It is not necessary for us to discuss the law or to set out the evidence. We have given both the law and the evidence careful consideration, and hold that under the law as stated in the case cited, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. There was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.E. 340, 74 Ind. App. 699, 1921 Ind. App. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-v-meyer-indctapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack