White v. Sheetz

Indiana Court of Appeals

White v. Sheetz

45 N.E. 673, 17 Ind. App. 699, 1896 Ind. App. LEXIS 219

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 30, 1896

DocketNo. 1,671

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 45 N.E. 673 (White v. Sheetz) 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

White v. Sheetz, 45 N.E. 673, 17 Ind. App. 699, 1896 Ind. App. LEXIS 219 (Ind. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Reinhard, J.

Appellants’• counsel ask us to reverse this case on the evidence. In their original brief they entirely fail -to point out wherein the evidence is insufficient. This omission they seek to supply in their reply brief; but counsel should have stated their reasons [700]*700more explicitly in their opening brief. We have, however, examined the evidence and find it sufficient to sustain the verdict. The appellee leased to the appellants certain real estate for the term of one year. After the term expired the appellants held over and paid rent to appellee, which was received by her. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether this holding over was under the original tenancy, or whether a new contract was entered into between the parties for another specified term. The jury found the holding over was under a new agreement. There is evidence to support this finding.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Reinhard, J.

Appellants’• counsel ask us to reverse this case on the evidence. In their original brief they entirely fail -to point out wherein the evidence is insufficient. This omission they seek to supply in their reply brief; but counsel should have stated their reasons [700]*700more explicitly in their opening brief. We have, however, examined the evidence and find it sufficient to sustain the verdict. The appellee leased to the appellants certain real estate for the term of one year. After the term expired the appellants held over and paid rent to appellee, which was received by her. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether this holding over was under the original tenancy, or whether a new contract was entered into between the parties for another specified term. The jury found the holding over was under a new agreement. There is evidence to support this finding.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.E. 673, 17 Ind. App. 699, 1896 Ind. App. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-sheetz-indctapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack