Service v. Gambrel

11 N.E. 240, 110 Ind. 349, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 64
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided April 8, 1887·No. No. 12,857·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Elliott, C. J.

The appellant discusses the questions arising on the special finding and no others, and, under the long settled practice, must be deemed to have waived all other questions.

The appellees contend that the special finding is not properly a part of the record. This contention must prevail. There is neither a bill of exceptions nor a special order making the finding a part of the record, nor is the finding signed by the judge who tried the case, and it can not be regarded as anything more than a general finding. Peoria, etc., Ins. Co. v. Walser, 22 Ind. 73; McClellan v. Bond, 92 Ind. 424, and cases cited; Wallace v. Kirtley, 98 Ind. 485.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Service v. Gambrel, 11 N.E. 240, 110 Ind. 349, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 64 (Ind. 1887).

11 N.E. 240 (Service v. Gambrel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jordan v. Jordan
136 N.E. 866 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1922)
Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. Indiana State Bank
132 N.E. 693 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1921)
Cole Carriage Co. v. Hornbeck
89 N.E. 379 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1909)
Stout v. Gaar, Scott & Co.
60 N.E. 357 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1901)
Galvin v. Syfers
52 N.E. 96 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1898)
Winstandley v. Breyfogle
48 N.E. 224 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
Smith v. State ex rel. Hamill
39 N.E. 1060 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Ferris v. Udell
38 N.E. 180 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)