Miles v. Miller & Sons

Indiana Court of Appeals

Miles v. Miller & Sons

147 N.E. 281, 82 Ind. App. 665, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 267

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 1925

DocketNo. 12,164.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 N.E. 281 (Miles v. Miller & Sons) 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

Miles v. Miller & Sons, 147 N.E. 281, 82 Ind. App. 665, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Enloe, J.

Action by appellee against appellant upon a promissory note. A trial by the court resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee. The errors assigned on appeal are: overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance, and overruling his motion for a new trial.

As to the first alleged error, no question is presented for the following reasons, viz.: the failure of appellant to set out said motion in his brief filed herein, and second, because it is now the settled law of this State that such a ruling cannot be made the basis of an independent assignment of error, but, to be available, it must be assigned as a cause for a new trial, in a motion in that behalf. Yazel v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 585, and authorities cited.

The second assigned error involves a consideration of the evidence.

The note which was the foundation of this action was executed in 1911, and indorsed thereon was a credit of $25, as having been paid thereon February 19, 1919. The president of appellee company testified that this payment, which was by check of appellant, was made by appellant as a partial payment *667 on this note; this, the appellant denied. The issue thus raised was one of fact for the trial court; its decision on all issues raised by the pleadings we cannot, upon this record, disturb. The appellant has presented no error.

Affirmed.

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

Enloe, J.

Action by appellee against appellant upon a promissory note. A trial by the court resulted in a judgment in favor of appellee. The errors assigned on appeal are: overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance, and overruling his motion for a new trial.

As to the first alleged error, no question is presented for the following reasons, viz.: the failure of appellant to set out said motion in his brief filed herein, and second, because it is now the settled law of this State that such a ruling cannot be made the basis of an independent assignment of error, but, to be available, it must be assigned as a cause for a new trial, in a motion in that behalf. Yazel v. State (1908), 170 Ind. 585, and authorities cited.

The second assigned error involves a consideration of the evidence.

The note which was the foundation of this action was executed in 1911, and indorsed thereon was a credit of $25, as having been paid thereon February 19, 1919. The president of appellee company testified that this payment, which was by check of appellant, was made by appellant as a partial payment *667 on this note; this, the appellant denied. The issue thus raised was one of fact for the trial court; its decision on all issues raised by the pleadings we cannot, upon this record, disturb. The appellant has presented no error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 N.E. 281, 82 Ind. App. 665, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-miller-sons-indctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack