McDaniel v. Mattingly
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Daviess Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
— The affidavits on which the appellant claims, a new trial, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence,, are not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.. Counsel claim no other error. The judgment must therefore be affirmed. Williams v. Potter, post, p. 354; Matlook v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130; Horton v. Wilson, 25 Ind. 316; Burnett v. Overton, 67 Ind. 557; Fryberger v. Perkins, 66 Ind. 19; Berlin v. Oglesbee, 65 Ind. 308; Buskirk’s Practice, 241.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Matlock v. ToddIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
- Berlin v. OglesbeeIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Horton v. WilsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
- Fryberger v. PerkinsIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Burnett v. OvertonIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by10 opinions
- Greenwalt v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1965
- Heltonville Manufacturing Co. v. FieldsIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Rains v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Wood v. CraneIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Rees v. BlackwellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.