TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Wahl v. Marsh

The State, ex rel. Wahl v. Marsh

State ex rel. Wahl v. Marsh, 21 N.E. 543 (Ind. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 16, 1889
Docket
No. 13,717
Judges
Olds
Citations
21 N.E. 543119 Ind. 3941889 Ind. LEXIS 297
Headnotes
Supreme Court. — Record.—Omission of Evidence.— Questions Eot Considered. — Where the record does not contain all of the evidence, questions depending upon the evidence will not he considered.
Summary
From the Clark 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 — Olds

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

Olds, J. —

This is an action on a guardian's bond. The only error assigned is the overruling of the appellant's motion fora new trial. The causes for a new trial set forth in the motion are, that “ the finding of the court is contrary to the evidence,” and “ the finding of the court is contrary to law.”

By the bill of exceptions it appears that the files and judgment of Applegate v. H. R. Carr et al., and a note and mortgage were introduced in evidence, and it further appears that the files are lost; and the clerk of the Clark Circuit Court, at the request of the attorneys for appellant, inserted in the bill of exceptions the entry on the judgment docket in a case of Rebecca Applegate v. Hezekiah R. Carr et al., and the clerk certifies to the record in the case that “ the above and foregoing is a full, true and complete transcript of all pleadings filed pertaining to said cause, except the papers in an action wherein Eebecca Applegate was plaintiff, and Hezekiah E. Carr et al. were defendants, referred to in the bill of exceptions, and which said files are missing and can not be found in my office.”

From this it affirmatively appears that the bill of exceptions does not contain all the evidence, and the case can not be considered on the evidence. French v. State, ex rel., 81 Ind. 151 ; Shimer v. Butler University, 87 Ind. 218 ; Collins v. *395 Collins, 100 Ind. 266 ; Hendrix v. Rieman, 90 Ind. 119 ; Thames Loan, etc., Co. v. Beville, 100 Ind. 309 ; Lawrenceburgh, etc., Co. v. Hinke, ante, p. 47.

Filed May 16, 1889; petition for a rehearing overruled June 19, 1889.

There is no question presented to this court by the record.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1892: 11932: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kenney v. King180 N.E. 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932)
  2. Harris v. Tomlinson30 N.E. 214 (Ind. 1892)

Most recent

  1. Kenney v. King180 N.E. 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 1932)
  2. Harris v. Tomlinson30 N.E. 214 (Ind. 1892)

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Thames Loan & Trust Co. v. Beville, 100 Ind. 309 (1885) 30
Collins v. Collins, 100 Ind. 266 (1885) 25
Shimer v. Butler Univ., 87 Ind. 218 (1882) 16
French v. State ex rel. Manifold, 81 Ind. 151 (1881) 15
Hendrix v. Rieman, 90 Ind. 119 (1883) 2

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