Legal Opinion

McDaniel v. Mattingly

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1880No. 7882PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. Matlock v. ToddIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
  2. Berlin v. OglesbeeIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Horton v. WilsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
  4. Fryberger v. PerkinsIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Burnett v. OvertonIndiana Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Greenwalt v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Heltonville Manufacturing Co. v. FieldsIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Rains v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Wood v. CraneIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  5. Rees v. BlackwellIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893

5 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