Davidson v. Davidson, 17957
| Decision Date | 13 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 17957,17957 |
| Citation | 120 Ind.App. 253,90 N.E.2d 821 |
| Parties | DAVIDSON v. DAVIDSON. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Garvin, Ging & Graber, Thomas E. Garvin, Indianapolis, for appellant.
James M. Dawson, Indianapolis, Arch N. Bobbitt, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellee.
Appellee was granted an absolute divorce from appellant, and this appeal followed. Appellant assigns as error the overruling of her motion for a new trial.
Appellant urges that appellee did not meet the requirements of the statute as to proof of residence by at least two witnesses who are resident householders of the state. Section 3-1203, Burns' 1946 Repl. Such proof of residence does not appear in the bill of exceptions. It is certified that the bill of exceptions contains all of the evidence.
The order book entries recite that evidence was heard on October 24, 1947, and on four later dates. The bill of exceptions recites that evidence was heard on the four later dates only. Appellee takes the position that upon this state of the record we must assume that evidence was heard on October 24, 1947, which evidence is not in the bill of exceptions.
It is the general rule that a bill of exceptions imports absolute verity. 'If a matter must be shown by a bill of exceptions the recitals of the bill which operates to bring the facts distinctly to the attention of the judge who signs it will control a conflicting recital contained in a prior order book entry.' Indianapolis Dairymen's Co-op. v. Bottema, Ind.Sup., 1948, 79 N.E.2d 409, 411. See also: Avery v. Nordyke & Marmon Co., 1905, 34 Ind.App. 541, 70 N.E. 888. From this state of the record we must assume that all the evidence is contained in the bill of exceptions.
There was a failure of the statutory proof as to appellee's residence. Such proof is mandatory and a failure thereof requires a reversal of the judgment. State ex rel. Martin v. Eby, Judge, 1947, 225 Ind. 283, 73 N.E.2d 767; Adkins v. Adkins, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 189, 70 N.E.2d 750; Berghean v. Berghean, 1943, 113 Ind.App. 412, 48 N.E.2d 1001.
Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain appellant's motion for new trial and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohannan v. Bohannan
...a party seeking a divorce under § 3-1203, Burns', supra. Wharton v. Wharton, 1941, 218 Ind. 345, 32 N.E.2d 695; Davidson v. Davidson, 1950, 120 Ind.App. 253, 90 N.E.2d 821, 91 N.E.2d 796; Adkins v. Adkins, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 189, 70 N.E.2d 750; Berghean v. Berghean, 1943, 113 Ind.App. 412, ......
-
Brokus v. Brokus, 3-880A235
...that residency requirements were jurisdictionally mandatory and failure to prove residency required reversal. Davidson v. Davidson (1950), 120 Ind.App. 253, 90 N.E.2d 821, rehearing denied, 120 Ind.App. 255, 91 N.E.2d 796; Berghean v. Berghean (1943), 113 Ind.App. 412, 48 N.E.2d 1001. The L......
-
Weiland v. Scheuch
...diligence in applying for certiorari. German Fire Ins. Co. v. Zonker, 1915, 57 Ind.App. 696, 108 N.E. 160; Davidson v. Davidson, 1950, 120 Ind.App. 253, 90 N.E.2d 821, 91 N.E.2d 796. We, however, know of no good reason, where reasonable diligence is used, for limiting the time within which ......
-
Casterlow v. State
...to the general rule that each appeal is decided on the record brought to the appellate court in the case appealed. Davidson v. Davidson (1950), 120 Ind.App. 253, 90 N.E.2d 821, 91 N.E.2d In LeFlore v. State (1973), Ind.App., 299 N.E.2d 871, 874, 38 Ind.Dec. 43, 47, in an opinion handed down......