Sparks v. First National Bank

Indiana Court of Appeals

Sparks v. First National Bank

135 N.E. 892, 78 Ind. App. 510, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 134

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1922

DocketNo. 11,363

StatusPublished

This text of 135 N.E. 892 (Sparks v. First National Bank) 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

Sparks v. First National Bank, 135 N.E. 892, 78 Ind. App. 510, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, P. J.

— Suit on a promissory note executed by appellant, and which had been endorsed to appellee in due course before maturity. Judgment for appellee.

The sole error which appellant assigns is the court’s action in overruling his motion for a new trial under which he contends that the decision, of the court is not [511]*511supported by sufficient evidence. But appellant has failed to present this as a ground for a new trial. That the finding is contrary to the evidence, and that the judgment is contrary to the evidence are net piuper assignments for a new trial. Lynch v. Milwaukee Harvester Co. (1903), 159 Ind. 675, 65 N. E. 1025; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Renicker (1893), 8 Ind. App. 404, 35 N. E. 1047; Bass v. Citizens Trust Co. (1904), 32 Ind. App. 583, 70 N. E. 400.

We have, however, examined the evidence as set out in appellant’s brief and have no hesitation in saying that it is sufficient to sustain the decision of the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Nichols, P. J.

— Suit on a promissory note executed by appellant, and which had been endorsed to appellee in due course before maturity. Judgment for appellee.

The sole error which appellant assigns is the court’s action in overruling his motion for a new trial under which he contends that the decision, of the court is not [511]*511supported by sufficient evidence. But appellant has failed to present this as a ground for a new trial. That the finding is contrary to the evidence, and that the judgment is contrary to the evidence are net piuper assignments for a new trial. Lynch v. Milwaukee Harvester Co. (1903), 159 Ind. 675, 65 N. E. 1025; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Renicker (1893), 8 Ind. App. 404, 35 N. E. 1047; Bass v. Citizens Trust Co. (1904), 32 Ind. App. 583, 70 N. E. 400.

We have, however, examined the evidence as set out in appellant’s brief and have no hesitation in saying that it is sufficient to sustain the decision of the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 N.E. 892, 78 Ind. App. 510, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-first-national-bank-indctapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack