Stutz v. Used Car Loan Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Stutz v. Used Car Loan Co.

88 N.E.2d 50, 119 Ind. App. 573, 1949 Ind. App. LEXIS 193

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 1949

DocketNo. 17,940.

StatusPublished

This text of 88 N.E.2d 50 (Stutz v. Used Car Loan Co.) 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

Stutz v. Used Car Loan Co., 88 N.E.2d 50, 119 Ind. App. 573, 1949 Ind. App. LEXIS 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The assignments of error in this case are as follows:

“1. The Court erred at the conclusion of the testimony of the appellee and after it had rested in overruling the motion of the appellant for a directed judgment.

“2. The Court erred in its judgment that the appellee recover from the appellant the sum of two hundred twenty-five ($225.00) dollars damages, with costs, and the possession of one Lincoln Sedan Automobile Zephyr, Model 73, year 1939, Motor No. H-75500.

“3.. The Court erred in decreeing a judgment for two hundred twenty-five ($225.00) dollars and costs against appellant.

“4. The Court erred in decreeing the appellee was entitled to recover the possession of one Lincoln Sedan Automobile Zephyr, Model 73, year 1939, Motor No. H-75500.

“5. The Court erred in its judgment against the appellant which is contrary to the law and the evidence in the case, and in subsequently overruling appellant’s motion for new trial.”

The first four assignments of error, and that part of the fifth which reads: “The Court erred in its judgment against the appellant which is contrary to the law and the evidence in the case” are not proper independent assignments, and present no question for review. Rothchild v. Citizens *576 Loan Co. (1936), 102 Ind. App. 397, 2 N. E. 2d 810; Simpson v. Fuller (1944), 114 Ind. App. 583, 51 N. E. 2d 870; Income Guaranty Co. v. Zienlinski (1939), 107 Ind. App. 248, 21 N. E. 2d 87; LaSalle Extension University v. Kronewitter (1949), 119 Ind. App. 341, 86 N. E. 2d 707.

The fifth assignment of error is a proper assignment insofar as it is based upon the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial. We have examined this motion, however, and find that it does not present any of the statutory causes for a new trial. Hence no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 88 N. E. 2d 50.

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

Per Curiam.

The assignments of error in this case are as follows:

“1. The Court erred at the conclusion of the testimony of the appellee and after it had rested in overruling the motion of the appellant for a directed judgment.

“2. The Court erred in its judgment that the appellee recover from the appellant the sum of two hundred twenty-five ($225.00) dollars damages, with costs, and the possession of one Lincoln Sedan Automobile Zephyr, Model 73, year 1939, Motor No. H-75500.

“3.. The Court erred in decreeing a judgment for two hundred twenty-five ($225.00) dollars and costs against appellant.

“4. The Court erred in decreeing the appellee was entitled to recover the possession of one Lincoln Sedan Automobile Zephyr, Model 73, year 1939, Motor No. H-75500.

“5. The Court erred in its judgment against the appellant which is contrary to the law and the evidence in the case, and in subsequently overruling appellant’s motion for new trial.”

The first four assignments of error, and that part of the fifth which reads: “The Court erred in its judgment against the appellant which is contrary to the law and the evidence in the case” are not proper independent assignments, and present no question for review. Rothchild v. Citizens *576 Loan Co. (1936), 102 Ind. App. 397, 2 N. E. 2d 810; Simpson v. Fuller (1944), 114 Ind. App. 583, 51 N. E. 2d 870; Income Guaranty Co. v. Zienlinski (1939), 107 Ind. App. 248, 21 N. E. 2d 87; LaSalle Extension University v. Kronewitter (1949), 119 Ind. App. 341, 86 N. E. 2d 707.

The fifth assignment of error is a proper assignment insofar as it is based upon the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial. We have examined this motion, however, and find that it does not present any of the statutory causes for a new trial. Hence no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 88 N. E. 2d 50.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 N.E.2d 50, 119 Ind. App. 573, 1949 Ind. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stutz-v-used-car-loan-co-indctapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack