Case ID: ind_185/html/0034-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Morris, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Standard Live Stock Insurance Company v. Atkinson.
    [No. 22,929.
    Filed March 17, 1916.
    Rehearing denied June 2,1916.]
    
      Appeal. — Reservation of Grounds of Review. — Exceptions.—Grounds.— An assignment of error that the trial court erred in certain conclusions of law because certain findings of fact were not sustained by sufficient evidence presents no question for appellate consideration since exceptions to conclusions of law assume that the facts were correctly found.
    From Marion Superior Court; Clarence E. Weir, Judge.
    Action by Isaac J. Atkinson against the Standard Live Stock Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1405 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 590.)
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Charles E. Henderson, for appellant.
    
      Emsley W. Johnson and Joseph W. Hutchinson, for appellee.
   Morris, C. J.

— Suit by appellee against appellant on a live stock insurance policy for loss of a stallion. There was a trial by the court,' with special findings of fact, and conclusions of law to which appellant excepted.

One of the assigned errors relied on for reversal is that the court erred in its conclusions of law Nos. 1, 2 and 3, because neither the thirteenth nor fourteenth finding of fact is sustained by sufficient evidence and that each is contrary to law. This presents no question. Exceptions to conclusions of law assume that the facts were correctly found.

It is further urged that the decision of the trial court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. The contention here relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that appellant waived the performance by appellee of a condition of the policy. We have examined the evidence and are of the opinion that it 's sufficient to warrant the court’s finding. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 111 N. E. 913. See 3 C. .1. 938; 2 Cyo 730; 38 Cye 1992.