118 Ind. 107 | Ind. | 1889
This is an action for partition. The complaint is in two paragraphs. The main facts alleged are, that Eliza K. Mitchell was the owner of the real estate; that her husband was addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors; that Mrs. Mitchell was in ill health and recognized the fact that she must soon depart this life, and that if she left her estate to her husband he would immediately squander it; that the plaintiff Mary M. Matsinger and the defendant Ada Fort were her only children, and that she entered into a parol agreement with her daughter Ada, her husband concurring,,
A demurrer was filed to the complaint by appellees and sustained, and judgment rendered on demurrer against appellants in favor of appellees.
The appellants assign as error the ruling of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint. Counsel for appellees contend that there was no exception taken to the ruling of the court at the proper time, and that there is no question properly presented to this court.
The record shows that, “ on the 29th day of October, 1886, the same being the 17th judicial day of the October term, 1886, of said court, the following proceedings were had in said cause, to wit: The parties by counsel come, and the defendants’ demurrer to each paragraph of the plaintiffs’ ■amended complaint, being submiteed to the court, is sus
Section 626, R. S. 1881, provides that “ The party objecting to the decision must except at the time the decision is made.” In the case of Hull v. Louth, 109 Ind. 315, 333, the special finding of facts and conclusions of law were filed on the 31st day of December, 1883. No exceptions were taken to the conclusions of law upon that day. Nothing further was done until on the 3d day of January, 1884, when the plaintiff excepted to the conclusions of law. The court in that case says: “ It is settled by the decisions of this court,, that in order to save any question for review here, in a case like this, an exception to the conclusions of law must be taken at the time the decision is made.” It is so well settled that, in order to save any question on the decision of the-lower court, the exception must be taken at the time the decision is made, that it is unnecessary to cite further authorities. There is' no question presented to this court on the ruling of the court below in sustaining the demurrer to’ the complaint.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.