Thickstun v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
This text of 21 N.E. 323 (Thickstun v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad) 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.
Opinion
The appellant recovered judgment for twenty-five dollars in the court below, and moved for a new trial, assigning as causes that the finding is contrary to law, and that it is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Under the settled rule, no question as to the amount of the recovery is presented by this motion for a new trial. Hyatt v. Mat-[27]*27tingly, 68 Ind. 271; Langohr v. Smith, 81 Ind. 495; McElhoes v. Dale, 81 Ind. 67; Millikan v. Patterson, 91 Ind. 515; Fort Wayne, etc., R. W. Co. v. Beyerle, 110 Ind. 100. As the sole contention is that, the recovery was not for a sum to which the appellant claims he was entitled, we must affirm the judgment, because the question is not presented as the law requires.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21 N.E. 323, 119 Ind. 26, 1889 Ind. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thickstun-v-baltimore-ohio-railroad-ind-1889.