Racer v. Baker
This text of 14 N.E. 241 (Racer v. Baker) 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.
Opinion
The appellees petitioned for the construction of a ditch, and the appellants opposed by a remonstrance. Two questions are here discussed by appellants’ counsel, but these questions are not properly presented for our consideration, as there was no motion for a new trial.
It is settled, that in order to present questions arising on the mode of conducting the trial and in admitting and excluding evidence, a motion for a new trial must be filed in the court below. Neff v. Reed, 98 Ind. 341; Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Ind. 380; Crume v. Wilson, 104 Ind. 583; Bass v. Elliott, 105 Ind. 517.
The provisions of the civil code apply to all cases where issues are formed and tried, except where the special statute expressly or impliedly otherwise provides. Robertson v. State, ex rel., 109 Ind. 79 (87); Hutchinson v. Trauerman, 112 Ind. 21.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 N.E. 241, 113 Ind. 177, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/racer-v-baker-ind-1887.