F. C. Austin Manufacturing Co. v. Clendenning
Indiana Court of Appeals
From the Jefferson Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, C. J.
The appellant has assigned as error the overruling of its motion to set aside the service of process upon it. In the bill of exceptions by which it was sought to save the appellant’s exception to this ruling, the motion and affidavits in support thereof are’ not set out. They are mentioned, and at the places where they should have been but are not copied into the bill, the words “here insert” are written in parentheses. That they cannot thus be made a part of the record, though copied elsewhere in the transcript by the clerk, is a matter so often decided that we need only mention it.
The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jacquay v. HartzellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
- Ohio Thresher & Engine Co. v. HenselIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894
- Davis v. GosserSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
3Cited by5 opinions
- Nave v. PowellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1911
- Barrett v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1911
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BadgerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914
- Troendly v. J. I. Case Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1932
- Smith v. Jeffrey Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1922