McDaniel v. Mattingly
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Woods, J.
— The affidavits on which the appellant claims, a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence,, are not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.. Counsel claim no other error. The judgment must therefore be affirmed. Williams v. Potter, post, p. 354; Matlook v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130 ; Horton v. Wilson, 25 Ind. 316 ; Burnett v. Overton, 67 Ind. 557 ; Fryberger v. Perkins, 66 Ind. 19 ; Berlin v. Oglesbee, 65 Ind. 308 ; Buskirk’s Practice, 241.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.