History
  • No items yet
midpage
Freeman v. Bowman
25 Ind. 236
Ind.
1865
Check Treatment
Frazer, C. J.

This was a complaint for a new trial tinder sec. 366 of the code, on the ground of newly *237discovered evidence., A demurrer was sustained to tbe complaint, and that ruling is assigned for error.

J. W. Evans, for appellant. O. 3. Hamilton, for appellee.

The complaint did not purport to show what was the evidence given upon the trial of the case. "Without this it was not possible to determine whether the new evidence would have been likely to change the result, and hence the complaint was entirely insufficient. Glidewell v. Daggy, 21 Ind. 95; Cox v. Hutchings, id., 219.

It is argued that the statute does not contemplate a demurrer and other pleadings as in an. ordinary case. We perceive no reason for overruling the cases cited above, nor any necessity for the consideration of that question here, for as a correct result was reached, we could not, in any event, disturb the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Freeman v. Bowman
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Nov 15, 1865
Citation: 25 Ind. 236
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.