17 Ind. App. 91 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1896
Lead Opinion
The appellee was the plaintiff, and the appellants the defendants in the court below. All the paragraphs of the complaint were withdrawn except
There is an allegation that the plaintiff stated to Hay and Grossnickle that the letters patent, if purchased, would be of no value to him and that they knew that he was purchasing the same for the sole purpose of conveying the same to the persons represented by Stockman].
It is also averred that the letters patent were of no value, and there are many other averments of a technical character.
We are of the opinion that each paragraph is sufficient.
Another assignment of error is that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. As the complaint was sufficient there was no error in this ruling.
The last assignment of error relates to the overruling of appellants’ motion for a new trial.
It is insisted that the verdict is contrary to law and not supported by sufficient evidence.
An examination of the evidence shows that there was evidence supporting the verdict on ail material
Judgment áffirmed.
Rehearing
On Petition for Rehearing.
Appellants have filed a petition for rehearing in this case, in which they represent that the court in its decision rendered October 21, 1896, erred upon the following points: .■
1. In holding that the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the complaint contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
2. In holding that the verdict was sustained by sufficient evidence.
8. In holding that the verdict was supported by law.
In their original and very able brief, counsel for appellants fully discussed these points.
• We have gone over the evidence and, given these questions careful consideration and are of the opinion that the court, speaking by Judge Lotz, in the original opinion, reached a correct conclusion.
Petition overruled.