TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bolin v. Simmons

Bolin v. Simmons, 81 Ind. 92 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1881
Docket
No. 8472
Judges
Woods
Citations
81 Ind. 92
Headnotes
Assignment oe Error. — Practice.—Pemurrer.—Where the record shows the sustaining of demurrers to different answers, an assignment that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer is too indefinite. The particular answer intended should be designated. Same. — New Trial. — Causes for a new trial can not be assigned as error. The proper assignment is upon the overruling of the motion for a new trial.
Summary
From the Hancock Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Woods

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Woods, J.

Appeal from a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage upon real estate. The appellee has filed no brief. The appellants have assigned the following errors:

1st. The finding is contrary to law.

2d. The finding is contrary to the evidence.

3d. The court assessed the damages too high.

4th. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint.

5th. The court erred in sustaining the demurrer of the plaintiff to the defendants’ answer.

The complaint is unquestionably good. Demurrers were sustained to more than one answer, and to other answers were overruled. It is, therefore, impossible to know to what answer the 5th specification of error refers. Besides the appellants’ brief is silent in reference to the rulings on demurrer.

The first, second and third specifications are proper causes for a new trial, but are not proper specifications in an assignment of errors. The proper assignment would have been that the court erred in overruling thé motion of the appellants for a new trial. This has been often decided.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Petition for a rehearing overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1889: 11891: 11894: 11897: 21898: 11900: 11907: 118892026peak 1897 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State, ex rel. Shenk v. Lung80 N.E. 541 (Ind. 1907)
  2. Fifth Avenue Savings Bank of Columbus v. Cooper48 N.E. 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)
  3. Robbins v. Masteller46 N.E. 330 (Ind. 1897)
  4. Tipton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Newcomer58 N.E. 842 (Ind. 1900)
  5. Black v. Thompson36 N.E. 643 (Ind. 1894)
  6. Singer v. Tormoehlen49 N.E. 1055 (Ind. 1898)

Most recent

  1. State, ex rel. Shenk v. Lung80 N.E. 541 (Ind. 1907)
  2. Tipton Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Newcomer58 N.E. 842 (Ind. 1900)
  3. Singer v. Tormoehlen49 N.E. 1055 (Ind. 1898)
  4. Fifth Avenue Savings Bank of Columbus v. Cooper48 N.E. 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)
  5. Robbins v. Masteller46 N.E. 330 (Ind. 1897)
  6. Black v. Thompson36 N.E. 643 (Ind. 1894)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list