Petty v. Frakes

Indiana Court of Appeals

Petty v. Frakes

129 N.E. 246, 75 Ind. App. 425, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 336

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 23, 1920

DocketNo. 10,549

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 N.E. 246 (Petty v. Frakes) 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

Petty v. Frakes, 129 N.E. 246, 75 Ind. App. 425, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Dausman, P. J.

This action was commenced by Nannie Frakes against William Petty and his wife Nancy Petty to recover possession of real estate. The defendants filed a counterclaim. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. A reversal is sought on the ground that the court erred in the instructions.

Appellants have informed this court that the bill of exceptions was prepared pursuant to §§664-667 Burns 1914, Acts 1911 p. 193; but no attempt has been made to set out the evidence or “a succinct recital of the substance” of any part thereof. The bill contains a recital to the effect that the plaintiff, introduced evidence tending to prove all the material averments of the complaint and tending to controvert the defendants’ evidence; and that the defendants introduced evidence tending to [426]*426prove all the material averments of the counterclaim and tending to controvert the plaintiff’s evidence. It is clear, therefore, that the bill is insufficient to present any question for our consideration.

Counsel for appellant are not claiming anything under §691 Burns 1914, §650 R. S. 1881, but we deem it proper to observe that the bill is not sufficient even under that section. See Goshen Milling Co. v. Bailey (1917), 186 Ind. 377, 383, 114 N. E. 869; Atkinson v. Maris (1907), 40 Ind. App. 718, 723, 81 N. E. 745; Adams v. Vanderbeck (1896), 148 Ind. 92, 45 N. E. 645, 47 N. E. 24, 62 Am. St. 497; Geiger v. Huenneke (1896), 16 Ind. App. 326, 44 N. E. 1117.

Judgment affirmed.

McMahan, J., not participating.

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

Dausman, P. J.

This action was commenced by Nannie Frakes against William Petty and his wife Nancy Petty to recover possession of real estate. The defendants filed a counterclaim. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. A reversal is sought on the ground that the court erred in the instructions.

Appellants have informed this court that the bill of exceptions was prepared pursuant to §§664-667 Burns 1914, Acts 1911 p. 193; but no attempt has been made to set out the evidence or “a succinct recital of the substance” of any part thereof. The bill contains a recital to the effect that the plaintiff, introduced evidence tending to prove all the material averments of the complaint and tending to controvert the defendants’ evidence; and that the defendants introduced evidence tending to [426]*426prove all the material averments of the counterclaim and tending to controvert the plaintiff’s evidence. It is clear, therefore, that the bill is insufficient to present any question for our consideration.

Counsel for appellant are not claiming anything under §691 Burns 1914, §650 R. S. 1881, but we deem it proper to observe that the bill is not sufficient even under that section. See Goshen Milling Co. v. Bailey (1917), 186 Ind. 377, 383, 114 N. E. 869; Atkinson v. Maris (1907), 40 Ind. App. 718, 723, 81 N. E. 745; Adams v. Vanderbeck (1896), 148 Ind. 92, 45 N. E. 645, 47 N. E. 24, 62 Am. St. 497; Geiger v. Huenneke (1896), 16 Ind. App. 326, 44 N. E. 1117.

Judgment affirmed.

McMahan, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.E. 246, 75 Ind. App. 425, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petty-v-frakes-indctapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack