Vasbinder v. Pugh
This text of 9 Ind. 355 (Vasbinder v. Pugh) 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
This cause was submitted to the Court. Finding for the plaintiffs, Pugh and others. It is brought here on the weight of evidence, and the alleged variance between the proof and the allegations.
We seldom disturb such findings. To justify such interference, they must be clearly erroneous, importing gross mistake of facts, or of law. It is not enough to reverse a judgment that we should not have come to the same conclusion on the same evidence. The tribunal which tries facts has advantages in seeing the witness, of giving credit to this, and discrediting that statement, which the appellate Court cannot appreciate, and should not venture to meddle with, except in extreme cases. Such has been the rule in this Court from an early period, adhered to up to the present time
The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.
See The State v. O’Haver, 8 Ind. R. 282; Logansport v. Dunn, id. 378; Gibson v. The State, ante, 264; Harvey v. Quick, ante, 258.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Ind. 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasbinder-v-pugh-ind-1857.