Parrott v. Richardson

Indiana Supreme Court

Parrott v. Richardson

57 N.E. 105, 154 Ind. 455, 1900 Ind. LEXIS 67

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedApril 20, 1900

DocketNo. 19,185

StatusPublished

This text of 57 N.E. 105 (Parrott v. Richardson) 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

Parrott v. Richardson, 57 N.E. 105, 154 Ind. 455, 1900 Ind. LEXIS 67 (Ind. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Monks, J.

Appellant sued appellee to recover a personal judgment against him for purchase money alleged to be due on the real estate described in the complaint, and to enforce an equitable lien therefor against said land. The case was tried by the court, and a general finding made in favor of appellee, and over a motion for a new trial judgment was rendered against appellant:

The only error assigned calls in question the action of the court in overruling appelant’s motion for a new trial.

The first, second, and third'causes for a new trial,present the question of the sufficiency of th'e evidence to sustain the [456]*456decision of the court, and whether the same is contrary to law. It is not claimed that there was not sufficient evidence, if true, to fully sustain the finding of the court, but the weight thereof and the credibility of the witnesses are argued by counsel for appellant in their brief. There was legal evidence which fully sustained the finding of the court, and, although there was evidence to the contrary, we cannot, under the well settled rule, disturb the finding of the court or verdict of a jury under such circumstances. Schmidt v. Zahrndt, 148 Ind. 447, 457; Hoskinson v. Cavender, 143 Ind. 1, 2; Ewbank’s Manual, §46, p. 69; 2 Woollen’s Tr. Proc. §4385.

The fourth cause assigned for a new trial is newly discovered evidence. No question is presented for our determination by said specification, for the reason that the affidavits filed in support thereof are not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions or order of court. Heltonville, etc., Co. v. Fields, 138 Ind. 58, 66, 67, and cases cited; Hoskinson v. Cavender, 143 Ind. 1, and cases cited; 2 Woollen’s Tr. Proc. §4430, and cases cited.

Finding no error in the record the judgment is affirmed.

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

Monks, J.

Appellant sued appellee to recover a personal judgment against him for purchase money alleged to be due on the real estate described in the complaint, and to enforce an equitable lien therefor against said land. The case was tried by the court, and a general finding made in favor of appellee, and over a motion for a new trial judgment was rendered against appellant:

The only error assigned calls in question the action of the court in overruling appelant’s motion for a new trial.

The first, second, and third'causes for a new trial,present the question of the sufficiency of th'e evidence to sustain the [456]*456decision of the court, and whether the same is contrary to law. It is not claimed that there was not sufficient evidence, if true, to fully sustain the finding of the court, but the weight thereof and the credibility of the witnesses are argued by counsel for appellant in their brief. There was legal evidence which fully sustained the finding of the court, and, although there was evidence to the contrary, we cannot, under the well settled rule, disturb the finding of the court or verdict of a jury under such circumstances. Schmidt v. Zahrndt, 148 Ind. 447, 457; Hoskinson v. Cavender, 143 Ind. 1, 2; Ewbank’s Manual, §46, p. 69; 2 Woollen’s Tr. Proc. §4385.

The fourth cause assigned for a new trial is newly discovered evidence. No question is presented for our determination by said specification, for the reason that the affidavits filed in support thereof are not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions or order of court. Heltonville, etc., Co. v. Fields, 138 Ind. 58, 66, 67, and cases cited; Hoskinson v. Cavender, 143 Ind. 1, and cases cited; 2 Woollen’s Tr. Proc. §4430, and cases cited.

Finding no error in the record the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 N.E. 105, 154 Ind. 455, 1900 Ind. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrott-v-richardson-ind-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack