Case ID: ind-app_73/html/0448-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dausman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Chastain et al. v. Lindley.
    [No. 10,831.
    Filed June 17, 1920.]
    
      Appeal. — Review.—Decision.—Conclusiveness.—Where the evidence tends to sustain the decision of the trial court, it will not be disturbed on appeal for insufficiency of evidence.
    From Orange Circuit Court; Oscar Ratts, Special Judge.
    Action by Mark B. Chastain and others against Arthur L. Lindley. Prom a judgment for defendant, the plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Samuel R. Lambdin and William H. Talbott, for appellants.
    
      William J. Throop, McCart & McCart and L. C. Wright, for appellee.
   Dausman, J.

Appellants instituted this action to review a judgment for errors of law appearing in the proceedings. §§645, 646 Burns 1914, §§614, 615 R. S. 1881. The cause was tried on a transcript of the record made in the original action. The court made a general finding for the appellee and rendered judgment that appellants take nothing by their action. The only alleged error presented here is that the court erred in holding that there is evidence to sustain the decision in the original action. We have examined that evidence and we find that it tends fairly to sustain the decision.

Judgment affirmed.