74 Ind. App. 351 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1919
Appellee commenced this action by filing a complaint against appellants, in which it alleged in substance, among other things, that appellant Charles M. Kline was in possession of certain real es
Appellant Mary D. Kline filed an answer in general denial to appellee’s original complaint. Appellant Charles M. Kline filed an answer thereto in three paragraphs. The first is in general denial. The second
The cause was submitted to the court for trial, resulting in a judgment in favor of appellee against both
1. Appellant Charles M. Kline has stated only two propositions or points on his assignment of error. The first relates to the action of the court in excluding certain evidence, but as his motion for a new trial makes no reference to such ruling it cannot be considered. The second in effect waives all errors relating to the issues formed on the complaint and his answers thereto, by expressly stating that the only rights which he claims in this appeal are such as he has as the husband of his coappellant, and asking that such rights be protected in any mandate made by the court. We are therefore not required to give his assigned error any further consideration.
Said appellant also predicates error on the action of the court in refusing to permit certain cross-examination of Albert Lieber, but an examination discloses that no error was committed in sustaining appellee’s objection that the question asked was not proper cross-examination. We find no reversible error in the record. Judgment affirmed.