87 Ind. 342 | Ind. | 1882
It is claimed that the court erred in rescinding an order remanding the cause to the Bartholomew Circuit Court for trial, and in overruling the motion for a new trial.
If there was any error in rescinding the order remanding the cause to the court in which it originated, it should have been, but was not, made a cause in the motion for a new trial. Such is the rule in reference to the granting or refusing of a
It is claimed that there was error in the assessment of ■damages, but the question arises upon conflicting evidence, .-and is not available on appeal.
Judgment affirmed.