Case Name: Sertel v. Graeter
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1887-10-18
Citations: 112 Ind. 117
Docket Number: No. 13,617
Parties: Sertel v. Graeter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
No. 13,617.
Sertel v. Graeter.
PeACTice. — Supreme Gouri. — Appeal.—Motion, for New Trial. — Bill of Exceptions. — Where one of the causes relied on in a motion for a new trial is the rejection of offered evidence, the motion must specifically indicate the evidence offered and excluded, and the bill of exceptions must show that the evidence offered was that indicated in such motion.
From the Knox Circuit Court.
H. S. Cauthorn and J. M. Boyle, for appellant.
J. S. Pritchett, W. A. Cullop and G. W. Shaw, for appellee.

Opinion:
Elliott, J.
One of the points relied on for a reversal of the judgment in this case is that the trial court erred in refusing to permit testimony offered by the appellant to be introduced.
It is answered by the appellee by the assertion that the motion for a new trial specifies, as the erroneous ruling of the court, the refusal to admit plans and specifications in evidence, while the bill of exceptions shows that the offer was of parol evidence to prove the contents of the plans and specifications.
Filed Oct. 18, 1887.
The record sustains the appellee as to the fact, and the law is with him. The motion for a new trial must specifically indicate the evidence offered and excluded, and the bill of exceptions must show that the evidence offered was that indicated in the motion. Bruker v. Kelsey, 72 Ind. 51.
There is evidence sustaining the finding upon all material points, and it must remain undisturbed.
Judgment affirmed.