Case ID: ind_106/html/0141-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Elliott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 12,445.
    Jaqua v. The Cordesman and Egan Company.
    Filed April 1, 1886.
    
      Pleading. — Account.—Omission of Avermemt that Debt is Due. — A complaint on account for work and labor performed at the request of the defendant, which charges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, but omits to allege that the debt is due and unpaid, is good.
    Instruction to Jury. — •Failure to Give in Writing Upon Request. — Supreme Court. — Practice.—A failure of the trial court to instruct the jury in writing upon request of the appellee, is not available to the appellant for a reversal of the judgment.
    
      Same. — -Exceptions to Instructions in Motion for New Trial. — Exceptions to instructions, made for the first time in the motion for a new trial, are too late to be available.
    From the Jay Circuit Court.
    
      J). T. Taylor, J. M. Smith and T. Bailey, for appellant.
    
      J. W. ITeadington, J. J: M. LaFollette and J. F. LaFollette, for appellee.
   Elliott, J.

A complaint on account for work and labor performed at the request of the defendant, which charges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff, but omits to allege that the debt is due and unpaid, is good. Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Thornburgh, 98 Ind. 201; Hartlep v. Cole, 94 Ind. 513; Heshion v. Julian, 82 Ind. 576; Mayes v. Goldsmith, 58 Ind. 94.

The appellee requested the court to instruct in writing, but the appellant did not, and the court gave an oral instruction. The appellant can not have a judgment of reversal on the ground that the court denied his adversary’s request. Thompson Charging the Jury, sections 106, 107; Columbus, etc., R. W. Co. v. Powell, 40 Ind. 37.

In the present instance the appellee, by the request for a further instruction, practically withdrew the request to instruct in.writing, so that there was really no ruling upon the request of which even the appellee could rightfully complain.

Exceptions to instructions made for the first time in the motion for a new trial are too late to be available.

Judgment affirmed.