Branch v. Faust
| Decision Date | 18 September 1888 |
| Docket Number | 13,385 |
| Parties | Branch v. Faust |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Madison Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
R. Lake and E. B. Goodykoontz, for appellant.
C. L Henry and H. C. Ryan, for appellee.
Appellant has assigned as errors that the third paragraph of appellee's complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the court below erred in its conclusions of law upon the facts specially found.
These assignments are met by counsel for appellee with the contention that error can not be assigned in this court that a single paragraph of a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that, as the special finding of facts and conclusions of law copied into the transcript are not signed by the judge, and have not been brought into the record by a bill of exceptions, there is no question properly before this court for decision. This contention can not be disregarded without violating the provisions of the code, and the rules of practice long since settled by the decisions of this court.
There was no demurrer to the third paragraph of the complaint filed below. Its sufficiency is brought in question for the first time by an assignment of error in this court.
The code provides that by a failure to present objections to a complaint by a demurrer or answer, all objections thereto shall be deemed to have been waived, "except only the objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the action, and except the objection that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action." R. S. 1881, section 343.
Such an objection to a complaint may be made by an assignment of error in this court, but, like a motion in arrest of judgment, it challenges the complaint as a whole, and will not be available if in the complaint there is one good paragraph. So the above section of the code clearly provides, and so it has uniformly been interpreted. Kelsey v. Henry, 48 Ind. 37; McCallister v. Mount, 73 Ind. 559; Trammel v. Chipman, 74 Ind. 474; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Peck, 99 Ind. 68; United States Ex. Co. v. Rawson, 106 Ind. 215, 6 N.E. 337.
The clerk below has copied into the transcript what purports to be a special finding of facts and the court's conclusions of law thereon. Neither the finding of facts nor the conclusions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dennis v. United States
...in this opinion. See Anarchism, 2 Encyc.Soc.Sci. 46; Nihilism, 11 Encyc.Soc.Sci. 377. 4. Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 12 N.E.2d 865, 17 N.E. 898. 5. Prof. Beard demonstrates this antithesis by quoting the Russian anarchist leader Bakunin, as follows: "Marx is an authoritarian and centralizi......
-
Commonwealth v. Almeida.
...The conviction of the defendant was sustained. In the Chicago ‘Anarchists' Case’, Spies et al. v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 12 N.E. 865, 961, 17 N.E. 898, 3 Am.St.Rep. 320, the principle of proximate cause was applied. In that case the man who hurled the death-dealing bomb at the policeman was ne......
-
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., Civil No. 8017.
...(Italics supplied) (121 Me. at page 378, 117 A. at pages 463, 464) Spies v. People, 1887, 122 Ill. 1, 238, 239, 12 N.E. 865, 980, 17 N.E. 898, 3 Am. St.Rep. 320, petition for writ of error dismissed 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22, 31 L. Ed. 80, cited by the Government also relates to the or......
-
United States v. Patterson
...an unlawful purpose. ' Com. v. Hunt, 4 Metc. (Mass.) 123; Rex v. Gray, 3 Harg.St.Tr. 519; Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 212, 213, 12 N.E. 865, 17 N.E. 898; 3 Greenl.Ev. 189; Washb. Crim. Law, (2d Ed.) 42, etc. It is unnecessary to enter with nicety into the question of just what ends or means a......