History
  • No items yet
midpage
King v. Marsh
37 Ind. 389
Ind.
1871
Check Treatment
Pettit, J.

In this case there is no question raised on the pleadings, nor is there any error assigned for any ruling on them. There was no motion for a new trial in the court below, nor is the overruling of such motion assigned for error here. The only questions raised are as to the report of a master. That report is no part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions, which is not done; and we cannot, therefore, take any notice of its imperfections, it being used as mere evidence on which the court finds and renders Its judgment. 2 G. & H. 273, sec. 559. No motion having been made for a new trial in the court below, no-evidence Is, or can be, properly in the record, and we cannot, therefore, say that the court erred in its judgment.

The following cases, with many others that might be cited in our own reports, fully sustain us in this ruling. Doe v. *390Herr, 8 Ind. 23; The State v. Swarts, 9 Ind. 221; Thompson v. Shaefer, 9 Ind. 500; Gray v. Stiver, 24 Ind. 174.

G. V. Homk, y. H. Stotsenburg, T. M. Brown, and W. W. Tally, for appellants. D. C. Anthony and W. March, for appellee.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellants.*

Petition for a rehearing overruled.

Case Details

Case Name: King v. Marsh
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Nov 15, 1871
Citation: 37 Ind. 389
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.