Miles v. Boruff

167 N.E. 543, 89 Ind. App. 563, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 201
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided July 31, 1929·No. No. 13,715.·Published

Opinion

McMahan, C. J.

The verdict in this cause was returned and judgment entered thereon October 3, 1928. Within thirty days thereafter appellant filed his motion for a new trial. This motion was overruled January 7, 1929, with exception to appellant, but without any time being given within which to file bill of exceptions. On January 21, appellant prayed an appeal, and on that day was given sixty days for bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions was presented to the judge on a day in a subsequent term of court. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss, setting out the record as above stated and calling attention to the fact that the only questions presented by this appeal require a consideration of the evidence, which he correctly says is not in the record. Hatfield v. Ralston (1927), 85 Ind. App. 621, 155 N. E. 221. Appellant has made no answer to appellee’s contention that the evidence is not in the record.

The fact that the evidence is not in the record is no *564 reason why the appeal should be dismissed, but it necessarily requires that the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Miles v. Boruff, 167 N.E. 543, 89 Ind. App. 563, 1929 Ind. App. LEXIS 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929).

167 N.E. 543 (Miles v. Boruff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hatfield, Trustee v. Ralston
155 N.E. 221 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1927)