Lewis v. Rowland

• Decision Date: 30 March 1892
• Docket Number: 15,595
• Citation: 30 N.E. 796,131 Ind. 37
• Parties: Lewis et al. v. Rowland
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

30 N.E. 796

131 Ind. 37

Lewis et al. v. Rowland

No. 15,595

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 30, 1892

From the Fountain Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

S. F. Wood, O. P. Lewis, J. A. Lindley, V. E. Levengood and H. H. Dochterman, for appellants.

T. F. Davidson, for appellee.

OPINION

McBride, J.

Two errors are assigned, as follows:

"1st. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the supplemental complaint.

"2d. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial."

The first presents no question for our consideration. A demurrer will not lie to a supplemental complaint. A supplemental complaint is not an independent pleading, but is a mere supplement, or addition, to the original complaint, the two together constituting the complaint. Morey v. Ball, 90 Ind. 450; Derry v. Derry, 98 Ind. 319; Farris v. Jones, 112 Ind. 498, 14 N.E. 484; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416, 22 N.E. 95.

The second error assigned, as argued, presents no question but that of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the court. The evidence is conflicting, but there is abundance of evidence tending to sustain the finding, and we can not disregard it.

Judgment affirmed.