TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bain v. Goss

Bain v. Goss, 24 N.E. 361 (Ind. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 3, 1890
Docket
No. 14,247
Judges
Elliott
Citations
24 N.E. 361123 Ind. 5111890 Ind. LEXIS 236
Headnotes
Practice. — Imperfect Record. — Failure to Incorporate Evidence. — Where the evidence is not in the record, and the record is not made up under the provisions of the statute, or the rules of the Supreme Court, in such a mode as to present the questions arising on the admission of evidence, or the rulings upon instructions, without the entire evidence, an appeal will not he sustained.
Summary
From the Owen 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 — Elliott

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

Elliott, J.

The evidence is not in record, nor is the record made up under the provisions of the statute or the rules of the court in such a mode as to present the questions arising on the admission of evidence or the rulings upon instructions without the entire evidence, and the appeal can not be sustained. We have repeatedly indicated that we should be glad to have the record so made up as to present questions without incorporating the evidence, and we repeat that we should be glad to encourage such a practice. Jones v. Foley, 121 Ind. 180 ; Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. 450 .

It is, however, only where the record is properly made up under the statute or the rules of the court, that we can consider questions whiqji can not be fully undersood and decided without the evidence, in cases where the evidence is not in the record by a bill of exceptions. McCoy v. State, ex rel., 121 Ind. 160 . This case belongs to that class.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1893: 11895: 11899: 11900: 11901: 11960: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chestnut v. Southern Indiana Railway Co.62 N.E. 32 (Ind. 1901)
  2. Evansville Suburban & Newburgh Railway Co. v. Lavender34 N.E. 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 1893)
  3. Wright v. City of Crawfordsville42 N.E. 227 (Ind. 1895)
  4. PETTY, ETC. v. Friel167 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1960)
  5. Harris v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.55 N.E. 222 (Ind. 1899)
  6. Foultz v. State56 N.E. 262 (Ind. Ct. App. 1900)

Most recent

  1. PETTY, ETC. v. Friel167 N.E.2d 345 (Ind. 1960)
  2. Chestnut v. Southern Indiana Railway Co.62 N.E. 32 (Ind. 1901)
  3. Foultz v. State56 N.E. 262 (Ind. Ct. App. 1900)
  4. Harris v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.55 N.E. 222 (Ind. 1899)
  5. Wright v. City of Crawfordsville42 N.E. 227 (Ind. 1895)
  6. Evansville Suburban & Newburgh Railway Co. v. Lavender34 N.E. 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 1893)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Mercer v. Corbin, 3 L.R.A. 221 (Ind. 1889) 36
Jones v. Foley, 22 N.E. 987 (Ind. 1889) 15
McCoy v. State ex rel. Trucks, 22 N.E. 986 (Ind. 1889) 12

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