Mara v. Bucknell
John Mara v. John Bucknell
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Bothrook, J.
It appears from the abstract of appellant that the evidence in the ease was not preserved by a bill of exceptions, and no evidence, excepting a single item thereof, is set out in the abstract. As it is conceded that there was no bill of exceptions making the evidence of record, the ease must be considered here, if at all, upon the pleadings and the instructions of the court. The assignment of errors is in these words: “First, the court erred in giving the instructions it did to the jury; second, the court erred in sustaining objections to the defendant’s testimony; third, the court erred in overruling defendant’s motion for new trial; fourth, the verdict is contrary to law.” We have repeatedly held that assignments of error in this general form are insufficient to raise any question in this court. We need not cite the cases. See Code, section 3207, and eases collected in McClain’s Digest. The judgment of the district court is APPIRMED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.