TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Town of Carlisle v. Drake

Town of Carlisle v. Drake, 109 N.E. 39 (Ind. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 2, 1915
Docket
No. 22,816
Judges
Erwin
Citations
109 N.E. 39183 Ind. 4831915 Ind. LEXIS 80
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Appeax. — Presenting Questions for Revieiv. — Refusal of Instructions. — The refusal to give an instruction can only be presented for review through the medium of a motion for a new trial, p. 484. 2. Appeax. — Revieio. — Affirmance. — Where the errors relied on were the refusal of a peremptory instruction and the overruling of a motion for new trial, and neither the instruction nor the motion for new trial is set out in appellant’s brief, the judgment will be affirmed, p. 484.
Summary
From Sullivan Circuit Court; Wm. E. Bridwell, Judge. Action by Alice B. Drake against the town of Carlisle. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — Erwin

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

Erwin, J.

1. 2. This is an appeal from a judgment for personal injuries in favor of appellee against appellant. The-assignment of errors are (1) that the court erred in refusing a peremptory instruction for appellant, (2) the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The failure to give an instruction tendered can not he assigned as error in this court, hut should he assigned as cause for a new trial. Neither the motion to direct a verdict, nor the motion for a new trial is set out in appellant’s brief as required hy Rule 22 of this court. Por failure to comply with this rule the judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 109 N. E. 39 . See, also, under (1) 29 Cyc, 744; (2) 3 C. J. 1417; 2 Cyc. 1015, 1014.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 11948: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cooper v. Ford77 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 1948)
  2. Hart-Kraft Motor Co. v. Indianapolis Motor Car Co.109 N.E. 39 (Ind. 1915)

Most recent

  1. Cooper v. Ford77 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 1948)
  2. Hart-Kraft Motor Co. v. Indianapolis Motor Car Co.109 N.E. 39 (Ind. 1915)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hart-Kraft Motor Co. v. Indianapolis Motor Car Co., 109 N.E. 39 (Ind. 1915) 4

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