Town of Carlisle v. Drake

109 N.E. 39, 183 Ind. 483, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 80
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided June 2, 1915·No. No. 22,816·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Erwin, J.

1. 2. This is an appeal from a judgment for personal injuries in favor of appellee against appellant. The-assignment of errors are (1) that the court erred in refusing a peremptory instruction for appellant, (2) the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The failure to give an instruction tendered can not he assigned as error in this court, hut should he assigned as cause for a new trial. Neither the motion to direct a verdict, nor the motion for a new trial is set out in appellant’s brief as required hy Rule 22 of this court. Por failure to comply with this rule the judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 109 N. E. 39. See, also, under (1) 29 Cyc, 744; (2) 3 C. J. 1417; 2 Cyc. 1015, 1014.

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

Town of Carlisle v. Drake, 109 N.E. 39, 183 Ind. 483, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 80 (Ind. 1915).

109 N.E. 39 (Town of Carlisle v. Drake) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cooper v. Ford
77 N.E.2d 124 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1948)
Hart-Kraft Motor Co. v. Indianapolis Motor Car Co.
109 N.E. 39 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1915)