McMahan v. McMahan
| Decision Date | 24 April 1895 |
| Docket Number | 17,231 |
| Citation | 40 N.E. 661,142 Ind. 110 |
| Parties | McMahan v. McMahan |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for Rehearing Overruled September 24, 1895.
From the Hamilton Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
Shirts & Kilbourne, for appellant.
R Graham and Christian & Christian, for appellee.
The appellee sued the appellant for a divorce and alimony on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The appellant filed a cross-complaint seeking to be divorced from appellee on account of her alleged misconduct, in failing to properly take care of his household and other failures. Upon the issues formed upon these two complaints, there was a trial by the court, resulting in a finding and judgment for the plaintiff awarding her a divorce and $ 2,000 alimony, over appellant's motion for a new trial.
The appellant then moved the court to modify the judgment so as to adjudge and decree no more than the sum of $ 1,000.00 for alimony, instead of $ 2,000.00, which motion the court overruled. These rulings are assigned for error here. Afterwards the appellant moved the court to substitute a new finding and decree for and in the place of the one already made and entered by the court, and wrote it out in full embodying such proposed finding and decree in his written motion therefor, and the court sustained his motion and substituted the new finding and decree, and caused the same to be entered of record precisely as appellant asked that it should be done. There was no objection or exception by any one to this action of the court, as there could not be any available objection or exception by the appellant, who succeeded in inducing the court to do precisely what he asked it to do. That was practically to set aside its finding and judgment previously entered, against which all his objections and exceptions now urged had been leveled and directed, and make a new finding and render a new judgment, against which he never made any objection, and took no exception. The appellant is in no position to complain of the judgment entered on account of the facts found not being sufficient to warrant a divorce. Because, aside from the fact that the finding and judgment were both made and entered at his request, he made no motion for judgment in his favor on the facts found, or for a new trial. The finding can only be regarded as a general one, and a motion for a new trial after the finding, is necessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Milligan, State ex rel. v. Ritter's Estate
... ... motion, to direct the very verdict that was returned upon ... appellant's request ... It was ... said in McMahan v. McMahan, 1895, 142 Ind. 110, 40 ... N.E. 661, and cited many times by our courts with approval, ... that "What a party expressly asks the court ... ...
-
State ex rel. Carter v. Spencer
...an answer, the appellant cannot now well urge that they should have been pleaded as an answer instead of a counterclaim. McMahan v. McMahan, 142 Ind. 110, 40 N. E. 661;Carter v. Carter, 35 Ind. App. 73, 77, 72 N. E. 187. The decision of the trial court was in favor of the appellant upon the......
-
Seward v. Seward, 18746
...present as error action which he induced the trial court to take. Gray v. Gray, 1931, 202 Ind. 485, 176 N.E. 105; McMahan v. McMahan, 1895, 142 Ind. 110, 40 N.E. 661; The Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 1894, 141 Ind. 533, 37 N.E. 343; State ex rel. Reiman v. Kimmell, 1937, 212 In......
-
State ex rel. Carter v. Spencer
... ... cannot now urge that they should have been pleaded as an ... answer instead of a counterclaim. McMahan v ... McMahon (1895), 142 Ind. 110, 40 N.E. 661; ... Carter v. Carter (1905), 35 Ind.App. 73, ... 77, 72 N.E. 187. The decision of the trial ... ...