Beaty v. Donaldson, No. 19987

• Docket Nº: No. 2
• Citation: 136 Ind.App. 269, 200 N.E.2d 233
• Case Date: July 16, 1964

Page 233

200 N.E.2d 233 136 Ind.App. 269 Morris H. N. BEATY, Appellant,
v.
John W. DONALDSON, as Executor of Myrtle J. Beaty, Deceased,
and, Lloyd M. Headley and Mary B. Headley, Husband
and Wife, Appellees. No. 19987. Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2. July 16, 1964.

[136 Ind.App. 270]

Page 234

Johnson & Martin, by Paul H. Johnson, Jr., Zionsville, for appellant.

Webb, Webb & Smith, Noblesville, Wendell B. Iddings, John W. Donaldson, Lebanon, for appellees.

HUNTER, Chief Justice.

This is an action brought by appellant in the Boone Circuit Court to set aside an executor's deed given by appellee John W. Donaldson as executor of the estate of Myrtle J. Beaty, deceased, to appellees Lloyd M. Headley and Mary B. Headley, husband and wife, and grantees therein. This cause was venued from the Boone Circuit Court to the Hamilton Circuit Court.

The issues were formed by allegations in appellant's complaint that a certain sale of real estate was null, void and invalid and the deed evidencing the same should be set aside on the grounds that such sale was not had or made in conformity with an order of court authorizing the same. Appellant specifically alleged that appellee executor failed to give notice of the time, terms and place of such sale as required by the order of court. To these particular allegations, appellees filed their answer in denial.

Trial was had before the court which made a finding and decision on the issues in favor of appellees and against appellant. Judgment was rendered as follows:

'The Court finds against the plaintiff and for the defendant on the plaintiff's complaint and finds [136 Ind.App. 271] that the prayer thereof should not be allowed, costs taxed to the plaintiff.

'All of which is considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed.'

Page 235

Thereafter appellant filed a motion for new trial which was submitted and overruled.

The appellant's assignment of error presents two questions raised by his motion for new trial which are as follows (1) that the court erred in overruling plaintiff's objection to defendants' exhibits A, B, C and D respectively, and (2) that the finding and decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.

The appellant's assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to defendant's exhibits numbered A, B, C and D was a mere general objection on the grounds that said exhibits were immaterial and irrelevant to the issue. It has been stated many times that general objections to the admission of evidence are not sufficient to present any question on appeal, further that the objecting party must state specific grounds of objection to the trial court when the evidence is offered. We believe the rule to be well established that an objection to evidence on the formal grounds that it was irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial is too general, too indefinite and uncertain to present any question on appeal. This is particularly true where the immateriality or irrelevancy of such exhibits are not apparent on the face thereof. Sievers v. The Peters Box and Lumber Co. (1898), 151 Ind. 642, 50 N.E. 877 (Rehearing denied, 151 Ind. 642, 52 N.E. 399; Bass v. The State (1894), 136 Ind. 165, 36 N.E. 124; Stanley et al. v. Holliday (1892), 130 Ind. 464, 30 N.E. 634; Klingler v. Ottinger (1939), 216 Ind. 9, 22 N.E.2d 805; Gary [136 Ind.App. 272] Railways...