Glidewell v. Daggy
Indiana Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Putnam Common Pleas.
1Opinion of the CourtPerkins, J.
The plaintiff calls his suit, by name, one for a review and rehearing. And in the complaint he filed, he evidently shows that he was confounding, in his mind, the two remedies of a suit for a review, and a suit for a new trial, when he filed it. But the only part of a case he makes falls within the provision of the statute, authorizing the granting of trials after the expiration of the term. ¥e shall treat the case as one, for the obtaining of such new trial, under sec. 356, p. 215, 2 G. & H.
New trials may be granted for any legal cause during the term at which the original trial is had,…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Hines v. DriverIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Morrison v. CareyIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Hines v. DriverIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Sanders v. LoyIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Rich v. StarbuckIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.