Racer v. Baker

14 N.E. 241, 113 Ind. 177, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 325
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided December 1, 1887·No. No. 12,502·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Elliott, J.

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

Racer v. Baker, 14 N.E. 241, 113 Ind. 177, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 325 (Ind. 1887).

14 N.E. 241 (Racer v. Baker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ball Stores, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners
316 N.E.2d 674 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1974)
Smith v. Biesiada
90 N.E. 1009 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)