Case ID: ind_84/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Woods, J. Woods, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 9334.
    Mansur et al. v. Churchman.
    
      Practice. — Motion for New Trial.- — -Exception.—Unless excepted to, the ruling upon a motion for a new trial presents no question on appeal.
    
      Same.' — Behearing.—Correction of Becord. — A rehearing will not be granted in order that the record may be corrected, and so made to show an exception.
    From the Superior Court of Marion County.
    
      IT. J. Milligan, for appellants.
    
      N. B. Taylor, F. Band and F. Taylor, for appellee.
   Woods, J.

The error assigned in the general term of the Superior Court was the overruling of the appellants’ motion for a new trial; but, as the record fails to show an exception to the ruling, no question is presented. Henley v. McNoun, 76 Ind. 380.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

On Petition for a Rehearing.

Woods, C. J.

A rehearing is asked for the purpose of per-

mitting a correction of the record so as to show that an exception was saved to the overruling of the motion for a new trial. That a rehearing will not be granted for this purpose has been frequently decided; see Warner v. Campbell, 39 Ind. 409; Cole v. Allen, 51 Ind. 122; State, ex rel., v. Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co., 64 Ind. 297; Merrifield v. Weston, 68 Ind. 70.

This appeal is from a decree of foreclosure in a sum less than $50 found due upon an assessment for a street improvement, and no good reason is shown why the case should be made an exception to the rule.

Petition overruled.