Ralston v. Radcliff
This text of 34 Ind. 513 (Ralston v. Radcliff) 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
Radcliff filed a claim before the commissioners of DeKalb county, which was allowed. Ralston, on affidavit and bond filed, appealed to the circuit court, from the order of allowance. In the circuit court the case appears to have been wrongly docketed as Samuel W. Ralston v. John F. Radcliff A bill of exceptions, signed by the judge of the circuit court, shows that when the case was. called for trial in that court, “ Radcliff offered no evidence whatever, whereupon the said Ralston, by his attorney,.announced that they would offer no evidence, and thereupon the court dismissed. [514]*514the appeal, on the ground that the. appellant had the burden of proof thrown upon him.” Ralston excepted, and appealed to this court.
This ruling was wrong. The case should have been dockected in the circuit court as Radcliff v. Ralston, should have been tried de novo, and if no evidence was offered, should have been decided on the merits for Ralston, the appellant.
The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded. '
Worden, J., having been concerned as counsel in the cause, was absent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 Ind. 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralston-v-radcliff-ind-1870.