State ex rel. Attorney General v. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R.

64 Ind. 297
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 64 Ind. 297 (State ex rel. Attorney General v. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R.) 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.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Attorney General v. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R., 64 Ind. 297 (Ind. 1878).

Opinions

Biddle, J.

In this ease the appellee had judgment in its favor on a demurrer to the appellant’s complaint, in the Superior Court, at special term.

An appeal was taken to the general term, wherein the judgment was affirmed, from which an appeal was taken to this court.

In the transcript we find this entry:

“ The appellant files an abstract of the entry docket, and the following assignment of errors in this cause: [Not on file.]”

But no assignments of error appear in the transcript, as made at the general term.

In this court the appellant has properly assigned as error, that “ Said court in general term erred in affirming the judgment in special term,” and also assigns as error, that the court in special term erred in sustaining the de[299]*299murrer to each, paragraph of the plaintiff’s complaint. This second assignment of error is made too late in this court. We have frequently decided that we can consider* nothing in this court except the assignments of error made in the superior court at general term. This practice is well settled. Huffman v. The Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis, 51 Ind. 394; Selling v. Jones, 52 Ind. 409; Alexander v. The North- Western Christian University, 57 Ind. 466; Miller v. The State, ex rel. Harrington, 61 Ind. 503.

There being no assignments'of error made at the general term of the superior court in the transcript, no question is presented to this court for decision. .

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Richey
81 N.E. 609 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1907)
Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. State ex rel. Ketcham
65 N.E. 401 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1902)
Drake v. State
145 Ind. 210 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Bank of Westfield v. Inman
34 N.E. 21 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Board of Commissioners v. Center Township
2 N.E. 368 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
State v. Dixon
97 Ind. 125 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. McBroom
98 Ind. 167 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Robbins v. Magee
96 Ind. 174 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Mansur v. Churchman
84 Ind. 573 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Burkam v. McElfresh
88 Ind. 223 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Merrifield v. Weston
68 Ind. 70 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Ind. 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-attorney-general-v-terre-haute-indianapolis-r-r-ind-1878.