Crawford v. Anderson

• Citation: 28 N.E. 314,129 Ind. 117
• Parties: Crawford et al. v. Anderson.
• Decision Date: 17 September 1891
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

129 Ind. 117

28 N.E. 314

Crawford et al.

v.Anderson.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 17, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Sullivan county; J. C. Briggs, Judge.

Action by Jesse Anderson against Noah Crawford and others to recover for work and labor done in repairing a dwelling-house and outbuildings, and to foreclose a mechanic's lien on the property. Judgment for plaintiff, and decree foreclosing the lien. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Chaney & Maple, for appellants. Hultz & Harris, for appellee.

McBRIDE, J.

This was a suit to recover for work and labor alleged to have been done by the appellee in repairing a dwelling-house, in building a veranda appurtenant to it, in removing and repairing a smoke-house, repairing a wood-shed, and in repairing and building an addition to a barn; the latter buildings all being alleged to be situate on the same tract of land, and appurtenant to the dwelling-house. The complaint also asked the foreclosure of a mechanic's lien upon the property in question for the amount alleged to be due. There was a trial, which resulted in a finding for the appellee, a judgment in his favor, with a decree foreclosing the lien.

Several errors are assigned and argued. The first is that the court erred in overruling a motion to make the complaint more specific. The record does not show that any such motion was made. There was a motion to strike out parts of the complaint, which was overruled, and counsel have argued at some length the error which they insist was thus committed. This question is not, however, properly before us. It is not covered by the assignment of errors. Even if it was, it has been many times decided by this court that overruling a motion to strike out a pleading or a part of a pleading is not error for which a cause will be reversed. Rowe v. Major, 92 Ind. 206, and cases cited; McLean v. Assurance Soc., 100 Ind. 127, and many other cases. The court overruled a demurrer to the complaint, and this ruling is assigned as error. The only objection urged to the complaint in the brief of counsel is that it is not sufficiently specific. The demurrer was correctly overruled. The complaint is clearly sufficient to withstand demurrer.

The appellee testified as a witness in his own behalf, and the court sustained objections to two questions asked him on cross-examination, on the ground that they were not proper cross-examination. It is impossible, from the state of the record, for us to say whether this was error or not. The testimony, instead of being set out in full, giving questions and answers, is in narrative form. It is apparent that the witness was examined in the usual way, but that for some reason the questions are omitted, and the answers so modified as to appear in narrative form. Judging from the narrative, the questions were probably legitimate cross-examining questions; yet it cannot be certainly said that they were. The circuit court is entitled to...