Stabno v. Leeds

Indiana Court of Appeals

Stabno v. Leeds

27 Ind. App. 289

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 1901

DocketNo. 3,813

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 Ind. App. 289 (Stabno v. Leeds) 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

Stabno v. Leeds, 27 Ind. App. 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The record contains no conclusions of law to what is termed a special finding of the facts. Besides, the special finding is not signed by the judge. As the record comes to us it must be treated only as a general finding. McClellan v. Bond, 92 Ind. 424; McCray v. Humes, 116 Ind. 103; Branch v. Faust, 115 Ind. 464; Smith v. Goetz, 20 Ind. App. 142.

A ground in a motion for a new trial that “the finding and judgment of the court is excessive in amount”, presents no question where the action is on contract. Moore v. State, ex rel., 114 Ind. 414; McCormick, etc., Co. v. Gray, 114 Ind. 340; §568 Burns 1894, §559 Horner 1897. See, also; Davis v. Montgomery, 123 Ind. 587.

But even if properly stated as a ground in the motion for a new trial no question is presented, because no attempt has been made to bring the evidence into the record.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pee Curiam.

The record contains no conclusions of law to what is termed a special finding of the facts. Besides, the special finding is not signed by the judge. As the record comes to us it must be treated only as a general finding. McClellan v. Bond, 92 Ind. 424; McCray v. Humes, 116 Ind. 103; Branch v. Faust, 115 Ind. 464; Smith v. Goetz, 20 Ind. App. 142.

A ground in a motion for a new trial that “the finding and judgment of the court is excessive in amount”, presents no question where the action is on contract. Moore v. State, ex rel., 114 Ind. 414; McCormick, etc., Co. v. Gray, 114 Ind. 340; §568 Burns 1894, §559 Horner 1897. See, also; Davis v. Montgomery, 123 Ind. 587.

But even if properly stated as a ground in the motion for a new trial no question is presented, because no attempt has been made to bring the evidence into the record.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Ind. App. 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stabno-v-leeds-indctapp-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack