Hoskinson v. Cavender
| Decision Date | 12 December 1895 |
| Docket Number | 17,553 |
| Citation | 42 N.E. 358,143 Ind. 1 |
| Parties | Hoskinson v. Cavender |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Perry Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
W. Henning and W. A. Land, for appellant.
C. A. Weathers and J. H. Weathers, for appellee.
Appellee brought this action to contest the will of her father, and revoke the probate thereof. The trial resulted in a finding for appellee; and, over a motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered, setting aside the will and revoking the probate.
Appellant assigns as error that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.
One of the reasons assigned for a new trial was for newly discovered evidence. The affidavits in support of this cause for a new trial are not contained in any bill of exceptions, nor otherwise made a part of the record. This reason for a new trial cannot, therefore, be considered. Applegate v. Baxley, 93 Ind. 147; Harper v. State, ex rel., 101 Ind. 109, on page 112.
The other causes for a new trial were, that "the finding is contrary to the evidence," and also "contrary to the law." We have carefully read the evidence, and, while we find it conflicting, there is evidence which supports the finding on every material point.
The rule is well settled that this court will not reverse a judgment on the weight of the evidence, although the weight of the evidence might, in our opinion, be against the finding of the trial court. Lawrence v. Van Buskirk, 140 Ind. 481, 40 N.E. 54, and cases cited.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sievers v. The Peters Box and Lumber Company
... ... 656] court will not weight the evidence. Lawrence v ... Van Buskirk, 140 Ind. 481, 483, 40 N.E. 54; ... Hoskinson v. Cavender, 143 Ind. 1, 2, 42 ... N.E. 358; Steele v. Empsom, 142 Ind. 397, ... 405, 41 N.E. 822 ... The ... next ... ...
-
McCaslin v. Advance Mfg. Co.
...the record in a civil case by a bill of exceptions or order of court, said causes of a new trial cannot be considered. Hoskinson v. Cavender, 143 Ind. 1, 2, 42 N. E. 358, and cases cited; Forsyth v. Wilcox, 143 Ind. 144, 41 N. E. 371; Ewbank, Ind. App. Proc. p. 76, § 50. The court did not e......
-
Hall v. Guthery, 19200
...625; Hudelson et al. v. Hudelson, 1905, 164 Ind. 694, 74 N.E. 504; Ray v. Baker, 1905, 165 Ind. 74, 74 N.E. 619; Haskinson v. Cavender, 1895, 143 Ind. 1, 42 N.E. 358; Southern Product Company v. Franklin Coil Hoop Company, 1914, 183 Ind. 123, 106 N.E. 872; Chicago, T. H. & S. E. Ry. Co. v. ......
-
New York Cent. R. Co. v. Thompson
... ... appellee. Hudelson et al. v. Hudelson et al., 1905, ... 164 Ind. 694, 74 N.E. 504; Ray v. Baker, 1905, 165 ... Ind. 74, 74 N.E. 619; Hoskinson v. Cavender, 1895, ... 143 Ind. 1, 2, 42 N.E. 358 ... The ... record shows, in substance, the following facts: That on ... ...