Bayless v. Jones, 37 N.E. 421

Gavin, J.

In order to save any question by a motion in arrest of ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‍judgment, it must be made before the judgment is rendered. Potter v. McCormack, 127 Ind. 489; Colchen v. Ninde, 120 Ind. 88; Hansher v. Hanshew, 94 Ind. 208; Brownlee, Admr., v. Hare, 64 Ind. 311; Hilligoss v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co., 40 Ind. 112; Smith ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‍v. Dodds, 35 Ind. 452.

The motion in this case was, therefore, filed too late. Even had it been filed at the proper time, it would have ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‍availed nothing, because whatever defect there may have been in the complaint was cured by the verdict. Hasselman Printing Co. v. Fry, 9 Ind. App. 393; Duffy v. Carman, 3 Ind. App. 207; Citizens’ ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‍St. R. W. Co. v. Willoeby, 134 Ind. 563, and cases there cited.

A motion in arrest, based upon defects in the complaint, reaches such only as are not ‍‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‍cured by the verdict or finding. Jones v. Ahrens, 116 Ind. 490; Sims v. Dame, 113 Ind. 127; Balliett v. Humphreys, 78 Ind. 388.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Bayless v. Jones

Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals

Date Published: May 8, 1894

Citations: 37 N.E. 421; 10 Ind. App. 102; 1894 Ind. App. LEXIS 117; No. 1,177

Docket Number: No. 1,177

Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.