Tozer v. Hobbs' Estate
| Decision Date | 26 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 11545.,11545. |
| Citation | 79 Ind.App. 258,137 N.E. 715 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | TOZER v. HOBBS' ESTATE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; Thomas W. Hutchinson, Judge.
Action by the estate of Rochester Hobbs, deceased, against Roy V. Tozer, administrator. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals, and plaintiff prays for dismissal of appeal. Motion to dismiss appeal overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Otto T. Englehart and R. V. Tozer, both of Brazil, for appellant.
The administrators of the appellee estate have entered their special appearance herein and move to dismiss this appeal, for various reasons, as set forth in said motion, each and all of which involve an examination of the transcript of the record filed herein.
An examination of the record before us convinces us that the contention of the appellees, as to this record, is not well founded. The motion to dismiss this appeal is therefore overruled.
[1][2] The examination of the record discloses the following facts, viz.: (1) That this cause was tried by the court, and that on the 3d day of April, 1922, the court made its general finding in favor of appellant and rendered judgment in his favor for the sum of $320.28; (2) that on the 27th day of April, 1922, the appellant filed his motion for a new trial, the valid grounds therefor being that the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, was contrary to law, and error in the assessment of the amount of the recovery, the same being too small; (3) that on the 8th day of May, 1922, said motion for a new trial was overruled, to which ruling the appellant excepted; (4) that on May 16, 1922, the appellant prayed an appeal to this court and was given 90 days in which to file his bill of exceptions; (5) that the bill of exceptions containing the evidence was presented to the judge of said court for his signature on the 18th day of July, 1922, and that the same was signed by the judge on the 19th day of July, 1922, and thereafter, on the same day, said bill was filed in the office of the clerk of said court; (6) that the 19th day of July, 1922-the day on which said bill was filed-was in vacation, after the May term, 1922, of the Clay circuit court had adjourned.
The only error assigned in this court is the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial.
The power of a trial court to extend to a day beyond the term the time for filing bills of exceptions is given by statute....
To continue reading
Request your trial