midpage

Racer v. BakerRacer v. Baker

Indiana Supreme Court
Dec 1, 1887
No. 12,502
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Elliott
Elliott, J.

The appellees petitioned for the construction of a ditch, and the appellants opposed by a remonstrance. Two questions are here discussed by appellants’ counsel, but these questions are not properly presented for our consideration, as there was no motion for a new trial.

It is settled, that in order to present questions arising on the mode of conducting the trial and in admitting and excluding evidence, a motion for a new trial must be filed in the court below. Neff v. Reed, 98 Ind. 341; Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Ind. 380; Crume v. Wilson, 104 Ind. 583; Bass v. Elliott, 105 Ind. 517.

The provisions of the civil code apply to all cases where issues are formed and tried, except where the special statute expressly or impliedly otherwise provides. Robertson v. State, ex rel., 109 Ind. 79 (87); Hutchinson v. Trauerman, 112 Ind. 21.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Racer v. Baker
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Dec 1, 1887
Citations: 14 N.E. 241; 113 Ind. 177; 1887 Ind. LEXIS 325; No. 12,502
Docket Number: No. 12,502
Court Abbreviation: Ind.
Log In