Young v. Bear

Indiana Court of Appeals

Young v. Bear

131 N.E. 416, 77 Ind. App. 9, 1921 Ind. App. LEXIS 154

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 1921

DocketNo. 10,706

StatusPublished

This text of 131 N.E. 416 (Young v. Bear) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 N.E. 416, 77 Ind. App. 9, 1921 Ind. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-bear-indctapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack