Legal Opinion

Rosenzweig v. Frazer

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1881No. 8977PublishedCited by 22 opinions

From the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.

The appellant, who was the defendant below, moved for anew trial because the judgment was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

These are not statutory causes for a new trial. Code of 1852, sec. 352; R. S. 1881, sec. 559. It is cause for a new trial if the verdict or finding is not sustained by the evidence or is contrary to law, but not so of the judgment. It frequently occurs that, upon verdicts or findings in strict accord 'with the law and the evidence, judgments contrary to both law and evidence are rendered. But, as has been often decided, the remedy against such…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wilson v. VanceIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Shaw v. FergusonIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Evans v. Darlington ex rel. BursonIndiana Supreme Court · 1840
  4. Indiana & Illinois Central Railway Co. v. McKernanIndiana Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Thompson Farms v. CORNO FEED PRODUCTS, ETC.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. Dodge v. PopeIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Gates v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Migatz v. StieglitzIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Lynch v. Milwaukee Harvester Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1903

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API