Altmeyer v. Norris, 18456

• Decision Date: 30 April 1954
• Docket Number: No. 18456,18456
• Citation: 124 Ind.App. 470,119 N.E.2d 31
• Parties: ALTMEYER et al. v. NORRIS et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 31

119 N.E.2d 31

124 Ind.App. 470

ALTMEYER et al. v. NORRIS et al.

No. 18456.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

April 30, 1954.

Miller & Dale, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Martz, Beattey & Wallace Indianapolis, for appellees.

KELLEY, Judge.

Appellants commenced this action by alleging that they, as owners, entered into a written agreement with appellees, designated a 'Lease with Option to Purchase', the provisions of which appellees had violated, thereby, under the terms of the agreement, forfeiting their (appellees) rights. The relief sought by appellants was possession of the leased real estate, forfeiture of appellees rights and money paid by them, and damages.

Appellees were husband and wife when the agreement was executed, but were not so when this action was instituted.

Issues in the cause were closed by an answer of admission and denial by appellee, Mable Hintz Norris; similar answer by appellee, Ernest J. Norris, who further filed two affirmative answers, one of which averred an equitable interest in the property, the other charged fraudulent representations by appellants in inducing appellees to execute the contract to the damage of said answering appellee. Appellants replied in denial to said affirmative answers.

Trial, upon the issues made, was by the court, without jury. There was a general finding for appellants on their complaint, that they recover the possession of the real estate and $2,500 damages; a general finding that appellee, Ernest J. Norris is entitled to recover from appellants the sum of $5,000; and a general finding that no proof was submitted that appellee, Mabel Hintz Norris, has any interest in the real estate or in the agreement. The court further found that the $2,500 due from appellee, Ernest J. Norris, be set off against the $5,000 due from appellants to him, so that a money judgment should be rendered for said appellee against appellants. The findings were amplified in some respects, but as no request was made for special findings, such amplification may be disregarded and the court's finding treated as a general finding. Rhodes v. Selvage, 1919, 69 Ind.App. 533, 122 N.E. 352.

Judgment was rendered that appellants recover possession of the land; that appellee, Ernest J. Norris, recover of appellants the sum of $2,500; that appellee, Mabel Hintz Norris, take nothing and recover her costs; and that the costs be borne equally by appellants and appellee, Ernest J. Norris.

Appellants' motion for new trial, containing 12 specifications, was overruled and this ruling is the only error assigned on this appeal.

Specifications 4, 5, 6, and 7 charge error in overruling the 'objections' of appellants to certain evidence. None of said specifications present any question in that they each fail to show what, if any, answer was made to the question objected to. Rogers Cartage Co. v. Peglow, 1952, 122 Ind.App. 481, 482, point 1, 106 N.E.2d 235.

Specifications 8, 9, 10, and 11 seek to predicate error upon the admission into evidence of certain exhibits over objection of appellants as to the 'competency, materiality, and relevancy of the same.' The immateriality or irrelevancy of the exhibits objected to is not apparent on the face thereof. Such objection, therefore, is too general and indefinite to present any question. Crumpacker, Indiana Evidence, ...