Hartlep v. Cole

The appellant, Hartlep, the defendant below, has assigned here the following errors:

*5141. The etfurt erred in overruling his motion for a new trial;

2. The court erred in rendering judgment for appellee; and,

3. The appellee’s complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The last one of these assignments of error calls in question the sufficiency of appellee’s complaint after verdict and judgment thereon, for the first time in this court. In discussing this alleged error, the appellant’s counsel insist that the complaint is defective, in two material particulars, namely: