History
  • No items yet
midpage
Abraham v. Chase
11 Ind. 513
Ind.
1859
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Upon the transcript of the record in this case, the errors are assigned thus: “Said plaintiff saith that there is manifest error in the record and proceedings of said Common Pleas in this, that judgment should have been rendered by said Court for said plaintiff in error, instead of having been rendered against him.”

The code requires a specific assignment of all the errors relied upon, to be entered upon the transcript. 2 R. S. p. 161.

It will at once be seen that the assignment, in the case at bar, is too general, and does not, therefore, meet the requirement of the statute. See Kimball v. Sloss, 7 Ind. R. 589; Hollingsworth v. The State, 8 id. 257; Boswell v. The State, id. 499. These authorities are directly in point, and decisive of the question under consideration.

It may also be noted that, on behalf of the appellant, there is no brief.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Abraham v. Chase
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 14, 1859
Citation: 11 Ind. 513
Court Abbreviation: Ind.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.