Whisler v. Lawrence

Indiana Supreme Court

Whisler v. Lawrence

13 N.E. 576, 112 Ind. 229, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 385

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1887

DocketNo. 12,820

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 13 N.E. 576 (Whisler v. Lawrence) 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.

Bluebook

Whisler v. Lawrence, 13 N.E. 576, 112 Ind. 229, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 385 (Ind. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Elliott, J.

The appellant demands a reversal for the reason, as he alleges, that the court erred in taxing costs against him. We are of the opinion that the record does not. affirmatively show any error.

The bill of exceptions does not show what matters were presented to the court on the hearing of the motion, nor does-it show what action was taken prior to the trial. For aught, that appears, there may have been' an offer to confess judgment under section 514, R. S. 1881, and we must presume that this was done, or that some other valid reason existed justifying the ruling of the court.

[230]*230Filed Oct. 21, 1887.

It is firmly settled that, unless the contrary affirmatively .appears, all reasonable presumptions will be made in favor of the judgment of the trial court. The recognized rule is thus stated in Myers v. Murphy, 60 Ind. 282: “All the presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the decisions of the court below, and where a party claims in this court, that any of those decisions are ei’roneous, he must so save and present the alleged erroneous decision, in the record, as to exclude every reasonable presumption in favor of such decision.”

Judgment affirmed.

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

Elliott, J.

The appellant demands a reversal for the reason, as he alleges, that the court erred in taxing costs against him. We are of the opinion that the record does not. affirmatively show any error.

The bill of exceptions does not show what matters were presented to the court on the hearing of the motion, nor does-it show what action was taken prior to the trial. For aught, that appears, there may have been' an offer to confess judgment under section 514, R. S. 1881, and we must presume that this was done, or that some other valid reason existed justifying the ruling of the court.

[230]*230Filed Oct. 21, 1887.

It is firmly settled that, unless the contrary affirmatively .appears, all reasonable presumptions will be made in favor of the judgment of the trial court. The recognized rule is thus stated in Myers v. Murphy, 60 Ind. 282: “All the presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the decisions of the court below, and where a party claims in this court, that any of those decisions are ei’roneous, he must so save and present the alleged erroneous decision, in the record, as to exclude every reasonable presumption in favor of such decision.”

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.E. 576, 112 Ind. 229, 1887 Ind. LEXIS 385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whisler-v-lawrence-ind-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack