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

Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided June 29, 1922·No. No. 11,363·Published

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.

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

Pincite

135 N.E. 892 (Sparks v. First National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related