Legal Opinion
Bayless v. Jones
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided May 8, 1894No. 1,177PublishedCited by 3 opinions
From the Clinton Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtGavin, J.
In order to save any question by a motion in arrest of judgment, it must be made before the judgment is rendered. Potter v. McCormack, 127 Ind. 489; Colchen v. Ninde, 120 Ind. 88; Hansher v. Hanshew, 94 Ind. 208; Brownlee, Admr., v. Hare, 64 Ind. 311; Hilligoss v. Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co., 40 Ind. 112; Smith v. Dodds, 35 Ind. 452.
The motion in this case was, therefore, filed too late. Even had it been filed at the proper time, it would have availed nothing, because whatever defect there may have been in the complaint was cured by the verdict. Hasselman Printing Co. v. Fry, 9 Ind. App. 393;…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Smith v. DoddsIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Colchen v. NindeIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Citizens' Street Railroad v. WilloebyIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Brownlee v. HareIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- Sims v. DameIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McAfee v. BendingIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905
- Smith v. BiesiadaIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- Lilly v. Local Union No. 120Indiana Court of Appeals · 1920