Pattison v. Wilson

Indiana Supreme Court

Pattison v. Wilson

22 Ind. 358

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1864·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an application by the appellant under section 356, p. 215, 2 G-. & EL, for a new trial within a year after judgment. The application is based on newly discovered evidence. The complaint for the new trial does not profess to contain all the evidence given on the former trial, not even all upon the points upon which the new trial is sought. A demurrer was, for this reason, properly sustained [359]*359to said complaint. Cox v. Hutchings, 21 Ind. p. 219; Glidewell v. Daggy, id. 95.

Clay fool, Clarice, McDonald $ JRoache, for the appellant. Hendricks § Hovd, for the appellee.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an application by the appellant under section 356, p. 215, 2 G-. & EL, for a new trial within a year after judgment. The application is based on newly discovered evidence. The complaint for the new trial does not profess to contain all the evidence given on the former trial, not even all upon the points upon which the new trial is sought. A demurrer was, for this reason, properly sustained [359]*359to said complaint. Cox v. Hutchings, 21 Ind. p. 219; Glidewell v. Daggy, id. 95.

Clay fool, Clarice, McDonald $ JRoache, for the appellant. Hendricks § Hovd, for the appellee.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Pattison v. Wilson, 22 Ind. 358 (Ind. 1864).

Pincite

22 Ind. 358 (Pattison v. Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related