Wallace v. Kirtley
Decision Date | 24 September 1884 |
Docket Number | 11,173 |
Citation | 98 Ind. 485 |
Parties | Wallace v. Kirtley |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for a Rehearing Overruled Dec. 17, 1884.
From the Miami Circuit Court.
Affirmed, with costs.
A. C Harris, J. L. Farrar, J. Farrar, W. C. Farrar, H. J. Shirk J. Mitchell, F. J. Van Vorhis and W. W. Spencer, for appellant.
R. P. Effinger, C. M. Emerick and M. Winfield, for appellee.
Complaint in four paragraphs by appellee against appellant. Issues were joined and submitted to the court for trial. There was a finding and judgment for appellee. Appellant assigns as errors that the court below erred in its conclusions of law upon the facts specially found, and in overruling his motion for a new trial.
The clerk has copied into the transcript what purports to be the special finding of facts and conclusions of law thereon. But it does not appear that the special finding was requested by either party. It is not signed by the judge who tried the case, or set out in a bill of exceptions. The finding is, therefore, merely a general finding, and the exceptions to the conclusions of law present no question in this court. 1 Works Pr., sections 803-805, and authorities cited. A special finding of facts is not authorized, and if rendered is nothing more than a general finding, unless it is made at the request of one or both of the parties. The special finding and conclusions of law thereon become part of the record if signed by the judge without a bill of exceptions. But if not so signed a bill of exceptions is necessary to make them part of the record. Button v. Ferguson, 11 Ind. 314; Peoria, etc., Ins. Co. v. Walser, 22 Ind. 73.
The grounds for a new trial, as set out in appellant's motion, were as follows:
The evidence referred to was not set out in the motion for a new trial, nor was any further reference made to it therein. Where the error relied upon is the admission or exclusion of evidence, the motion for a new trial must designate the particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The Board of Commissioners of Jay County v. Fertich
...Branch v. Faust, 115 Ind. 464, 17 N.E. 898; Conner v. Town of Marion, 112 Ind. 517, 14 N.E. 488; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212; Wallace v. Kirtley, 98 Ind. 485; Levy v. Chittenden, 120 Ind. 37, 22 92; Ferris v. Udell, 139 Ind. 579, 38 N.E. 180; Smith v. Davidson, 45 Ind. 396; Shane v. Lowry, ......
-
George W. Condon Co. v. Loup River Public Power Dist.
...City v. Boyer, Mo.Sup., 202 S.W. 1086;Kelley v. Bell, 172 Ind. 590, 88 N.E. 58;Jacobs v. State, 127 Ind. 77, 26 N.E. 675;Wallace v. Kirtley, 98 Ind. 485;Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind. 212. In support of their third cause of action, plaintiffs state that the work upon which plaintiffs bid was descr......
-
George W. Condon Company v. Loup River Public Power District
... ... 72; Kansas City v. Boyer, 202 S.W. 1086; ... Kelley v. Bell, 172 Ind. 590, 88 N.E. 58; Jacobs ... v. State, 127 Ind. 77, 26 N.E. 675; Wallace v ... Kirtley, 98 Ind. 485; Bake v. Smiley, 84 Ind ... In ... support of their third cause of action, plaintiffs state that ... ...
-
Adams v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company
... ... court's order-book, as required by § 560 Burns 1901, ... § 551 R. S. 1881, and thereby became a part of the ... record. Wallace v. Kirtley (1884), 98 Ind ... 485; Elliott, App. Proc., § 732, and authorities cited ... But no ... order-book entry whatever ... ...