Young v. Bear

131 N.E. 416, 77 Ind. App. 9, 1921 Ind. App. LEXIS 154
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided June 10, 1921·No. No. 10,706·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only alleged errors presented by appellant, in this'case relate to the giving of certain instructions. The evidence given upon the trial is entirely omitted from appellant’s brief, and we must therefore presume that each of said instructions, of which complaint is now made, so far as they related to the facts of the case, were within the evidence adduced upon the trial. If this evidence to which they so relate was admissible under the issues upon which the case was tried, there was no error in giving said instructions. Oleske v. Piotrowski (1919), 71 Ind. App. 136, 124 N. E. 399; Fostoria Oil Co. V. Gardner (1919), 72 Ind. App. 509, 124 N. E. 467; Lyons V. Souder (1914), 56 Ind. App. 443, 105 N. E. 511.

Tested by these well established rules we cannot say, after an examination of each of said instructions complained of, that any error was committed in giving said instructions. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

Young v. Bear, 131 N.E. 416, 77 Ind. App. 9, 1921 Ind. App. LEXIS 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 1921).

131 N.E. 416 (Young v. Bear) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lyons v. Souder
105 N.E. 511 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1914)
Oleske v. Piotrowski
124 N.E. 399 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1919)
Fostoria Oil Co. v. Gardner
124 N.E. 467 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1919)