Legal Opinion

Doe on the demise of Condict v. Herr

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1856PublishedCited by 2 opinions

ON PETITION for a Rehearing.

1Opinion of the CourtStuart, J.

The ground assumed by counsel in favor of a rehearing is thus expressed: “The Court erred in holding that, in a case tried by the Circuit Court without a jury, it is necessary to move for a new trial, in order to present the case on its merits in this Court, on appeal.” And Richardson v. The St. Joseph Iron Company, 5 Blackf. 146, and Rogers v. Bishop, id. 108, are referred to.

These cases do not sustain the position assumed. In Priest v. Martin, 4 Blackf. 311, it is held that the finding óf a Court, without a jury, takes the place of a verdict. The -wotcL judgment, both in 4 Blackf. 311, and…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Richardson v. St. Joseph Iron Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1839
  2. Reno v. CraneIndiana Supreme Court · 1829
  3. Priest v. MartinIndiana Supreme Court · 1837
  4. Rogers v. BishopIndiana Supreme Court · 1839

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pierce v. ManningSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
  2. State v. MooreIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API