delivered the opinion of the court.
: This аction was brought to recover damagfes for an alleged breach of a covenant against inсumbrances, contained in a deed executed by the defendant.
■ The petition charged, that the defеndant by his deed sealed .with his seal, dated the 20th day of November, 1861, (which was filed with the petition,) conveyed to thе said Samantha Carver, wife of Ebenezer Carver, for the consideration of eighteen hundred dollars, a сertain tract of land described as being in Knox County, Ohio; that by said deed the defend.ant covenanted with the sаid Samantha Carver, that he was well seized of the premises, and had good right to sell and
The defendant answered, denying many allegations of the petition.
Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff read in evidence the deed from defendant, by which the land named in the petition was conveyed to said Samantha Carver. The plaintiff next offered in evidence a certified transcriрt of the judgment, and proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas, for Knox County, Ohio, referred to in the petition ; this trаnscript was objected to by the defendant for the reason, that it appeared, that defendant was, at the time of the rendition thereof, a citizen of the State of Illinois, and was only notified in said cause by аn order of publication published in said cause, and that the court therefore had no jurisdiction of the рerson of defendant, and that the judgment was therefore void as to defendant, and could not be read in еvidence against him.
The court admitted the evidence and the defendant excepted.
This evidence was also objected to because of its incompetence and irrelevancy; the objections were overruled and' the defendant again excepted.
The defendant offered no evidence on his part. The court gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defеndant filed a motion for a new trial, and set forth as the grounds upon which said motion was founded, the following:
1st. Beсause the said verdict and judgment were against the evidence.
2nd. Because the verdict and judgment are against the law.
3rd. Because the verdict and judgment are against the law and the evidence.
4th. Because the verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiffs, when thе samé should have been for the defendant.
This motion was also overruled, and the defendant again excepted and has appealed to this court.
The only objection made in this court to the proceedings and judgment of the Johnson Court of Common Pleas is, that the said court upon the trial of the cause received and heard improper evidence, which ought to have been excluded.
It will be seen, that no suсh ground of objection was set forth or brought to the attention of the court in the motion filed by the defendant for a new trial. The only grounds of objection set forth in the motion for a new trial are, that the verdict is .against thе law and the evidence, and is for the wrong party. No question is made in the motion as to the admission or rejection of evidence. Our Statute requires motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, to be filed within four days aftеr the trial, if the term of the court shall
In this case no reason set forth in the motion fоr a new' trial is urged in this court, except the general grounds that the judgment is for the wrong party. ¥e will not, therefore, consider the question as to the admissibility of the evidence, and there is some evidence upon which the finding and judgment might be made; we will not therefore examine. that question here.
The question in this ease was exactly decided in the case of Cowen vs. The Saint Louis and Iron Mountain Railroad Company,
This judgment will be affirmed;