Wood v. Crane

75 Ind. 207
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1881
DocketNo. 7422
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 75 Ind. 207 (Wood v. Crane) 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
Wood v. Crane, 75 Ind. 207 (Ind. 1881).

Opinion

Woods, J.

It is claimed that the circuit court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the fifth answer, and in overruling the motion of the appellants for a new trial.

The fifth paragraph of answer, which was duly verified, was to the effect that the several supposed promises and undertakings in the complaint mentioned, if any such were made, each and all were made by the defendants, not to the plaintiff, William B. Crane, but to William B. Crane and Calvin Crane, as partners, and that said Calvin is alive and a resident of the county. Wherefore, etc.

The fourth paragraph of the answer was a general denial, which put in issue the averment of the complaint, that the alleged promises and undertakings were made to the plaintiff. There was, therefore, no evidence admissible nor relief attainable under the plea in abatement, of which the appellants could not have had, and, it is to be presumed, did have, the benefit under the general denial. This was so at common law, as well as under the code. 1 Chitty’s Pleadings, side page 13, and notes.

[208]*208The motion for a new trial is based on the alleged misconduct of the plaintiff, and surprise of the defendants, in a .number of specified particulars, and upon the alleged discovery of new evidence. In apparent support of the motion, certain affidavits have been copied into the transcript, and also counter affidavits on the same subject, hut these affidavits are not made a part of the record, either by an order of the court or by a bill of exceptions, andaré therefore not properly before us. McDaniel v. Mattingly, 72 Ind. 349 ; Elbert v. Hoby, 73 Ind. 111.

There is in the record sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and we are not able to say, on the proofs made, that the amount of the recovery is too great.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Washington Hotel Realty Co. v. Bedford Stone & Construction Co.
143 N.E. 156 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1924)
North American Union v. Oleske
116 N.E. 68 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Smith v. Stump
40 N.E. 279 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1895)
Heltonville Manufacturing Co. v. Fields
36 N.E. 529 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Townsend v. State
31 N.E. 797 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1892)
Eve v. Louis
91 Ind. 457 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
Indiana Manufacturing Co. v. Millican
87 Ind. 87 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Washer v. Allensville, Center Square & Vevay Turnpike Co.
81 Ind. 78 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Ulrich v. Hervey
76 Ind. 107 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 Ind. 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-crane-ind-1881.