Case ID: ind_184/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lairy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dorrell et al. v. Herr et al.
    [No. 22,883.
    Filed February 23, 1916.]
    
      Appeal. — Review.—Evidence.—Motion for New Trial. — Where there is some evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court, a specification in the motion for new trial challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is not well taken.
    From Johnson Circuit Court; Charles F. Bemy, Special Judge.
    Action between Samuel Dorrell and another, and Elizabeth Herr and another; From the judgment rendered, the former appeal.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      L. E. Ritchey, G. D. Dean and S. Mahlon Unger, for appellants.
    
      Robert M. Miller, Henry C. Barnett and Oral S. Barnett, for appellees.
   Lairy, J.

The only error assigned in this case which is stated as being relied on by appellants in their brief, is the action of the trial court in overruling their motion for a new trial. The only statutory grounds alleged in this motion relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the court. As there was some evidence to sustain these findings on every material issue the position of appellants is not well taken. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 111 N. E. 614. See, also 4 C. J. 877; 3 Cyc 360.