History
  • No items yet
midpage
Young v. Bear
77 Ind. App. 9
Ind. Ct. App.
1921
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

The only alleged errors presented by appellant, in this'case relate to the giving of certain instructions. The evidence given upon the trial is entirely omitted from appellant’s brief, and we must therefore presume that each of said instructions, of which complaint is now made, so far as they related to the facts of the case, were within the evidence adduced upon the trial. If this evidence to which they so relate was admissible under the issues upon which the case was tried, there was no error in giving said instructions. Oleske v. Piotrowski (1919), 71 Ind. App. 136, 124 N. E. 399; Fostoria Oil Co. V. Gardner (1919), 72 Ind. App. 509, 124 N. E. 467; Lyons V. Souder (1914), 56 Ind. App. 443, 105 N. E. 511.

Tested by these well established rules we cannot say, after an examination of each of said instructions complained of, that any error was committed in giving said instructions. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Young v. Bear
Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jun 10, 1921
Citation: 77 Ind. App. 9
Docket Number: No. 10,706
Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.
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.