Tuxedo State Bank v. Keough

Indiana Court of Appeals

Tuxedo State Bank v. Keough

163 N.E. 626, 88 Ind. App. 265, 1928 Ind. App. LEXIS 136

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 1928

DocketNo. 13,128.

StatusPublished

This text of 163 N.E. 626 (Tuxedo State Bank v. Keough) 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

Tuxedo State Bank v. Keough, 163 N.E. 626, 88 Ind. App. 265, 1928 Ind. App. LEXIS 136 (Ind. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Enloe, P. J.

The error assigned in this case is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, the specifications of which motion were: That the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence; that it was contrary to law; error in admitting certain testimony; and alleged newly-discovered evidence. The evidence given upon the trial of this case is not in the record. See Tozer, Admr., v. Hobbs' Estate (1923), 79 Ind. App. 258, 137 N. E. 715. It therefore necessarily follows that no question is presented as to said first three specifications. As to the alleged newly-discovered evidence, such grounds are not favored in law, and the party asking for a new trial upon such grounds must, in his said motion) show diligence in the matter of procuring testimony; also, that such testimony is not merely cumulative, contradictory or impeaching in its character. Schick v. Blakesley (1922), 80 Ind. App. 253, 134 N. E. 498. We do not have before us, in this case, the evidence given ■upon the trial, as did the judge who tried the cause. He knew whether or not the alleged evidence was merely cumulative; we do not. He knew whether it was merely contradictory or impeaching; we do not, and must, therefore, presume in favor of the action of the trial judge and that, upon the record before him, his ruling was right.

No error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Enloe, P. J.

The error assigned in this case is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, the specifications of which motion were: That the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence; that it was contrary to law; error in admitting certain testimony; and alleged newly-discovered evidence. The evidence given upon the trial of this case is not in the record. See Tozer, Admr., v. Hobbs' Estate (1923), 79 Ind. App. 258, 137 N. E. 715. It therefore necessarily follows that no question is presented as to said first three specifications. As to the alleged newly-discovered evidence, such grounds are not favored in law, and the party asking for a new trial upon such grounds must, in his said motion) show diligence in the matter of procuring testimony; also, that such testimony is not merely cumulative, contradictory or impeaching in its character. Schick v. Blakesley (1922), 80 Ind. App. 253, 134 N. E. 498. We do not have before us, in this case, the evidence given ■upon the trial, as did the judge who tried the cause. He knew whether or not the alleged evidence was merely cumulative; we do not. He knew whether it was merely contradictory or impeaching; we do not, and must, therefore, presume in favor of the action of the trial judge and that, upon the record before him, his ruling was right.

No error has been shown, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 N.E. 626, 88 Ind. App. 265, 1928 Ind. App. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuxedo-state-bank-v-keough-indctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack