TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Standard Live Stock Insurance v. Atkinson

Standard Live Stock Insurance Company v. Atkinson

Standard Live Stock Ins. v. Atkinson, 111 N.E. 913 (Ind. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 17, 1916
Docket
No. 22,929
Judges
Morris
Citations
111 N.E. 913185 Ind. 341916 Ind. LEXIS 8
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Appeal. — Reservation of Grounds of Review. — Exceptions.—Grounds.— An assignment of error that the trial court erred in certain conclusions of law because certain findings of fact were not sustained by sufficient evidence presents no question for appellate consideration since exceptions to conclusions of law assume that the facts were correctly found.
Summary
From Marion Superior Court; Clarence E. Weir, Judge. Action by Isaac J. Atkinson against the Standard Live Stock Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1405 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 590.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Morris

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

Morris, C. J.

— Suit by appellee against appellant on a live stock insurance policy for loss of a stallion. There was a trial by the court,' with special findings of fact, and conclusions of law to which appellant excepted.

One of the assigned errors relied on for reversal is that the court erred in its conclusions of law Nos. 1, 2 and 3, because neither the thirteenth nor fourteenth finding of fact is sustained by sufficient evidence and that each is contrary to law. This presents no question. Exceptions to conclusions of law assume that the facts were correctly found.

It is further urged that the decision of the trial court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. The contention here relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the *35 finding that appellant waived the performance by appellee of a condition of the policy. We have examined the evidence and are of the opinion that it 's sufficient to warrant the court’s finding. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 111 N. E. 913 . See 3 C. .1. 938; 2 Cyo 730; 38 Cye 1992.

How later courts describe this case

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

1916: 11917: 11923: 11926: 11943: 11950: 11951: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hadley v. Kays98 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
  2. State ex rel. Lesh v. Indiana Manufacturers of Dairy Products153 N.E. 499 (Ind. 1926)
  3. Hutchens, Admr. v. Hutchens91 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 1950)
  4. Cammack v. Kentucky Home Mutual Life Insurance49 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1943)
  5. Baker v. Johnson138 N.E. 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 1923)
  6. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Ritchey111 N.E. 913 (Ind. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Hadley v. Kays98 N.E.2d 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
  2. Hutchens, Admr. v. Hutchens91 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 1950)
  3. Cammack v. Kentucky Home Mutual Life Insurance49 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1943)
  4. State ex rel. Lesh v. Indiana Manufacturers of Dairy Products153 N.E. 499 (Ind. 1926)
  5. Baker v. Johnson138 N.E. 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 1923)
  6. Town of Carlisle v. Pirtle114 N.E. 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)

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
Cleveland, Cincinnati v. Ritchey, 111 N.E. 913 (Ind. 1916) 14

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