Case Name: Coy et al. v. Druckamiller
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1905-02-03
Citations: 35 Ind. App. 177
Docket Number: No. 5,082
Parties: Coy et al. v. Druckamiller.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 177–179

Head Matter:
Coy et al. v. Druckamiller.
[No. 5,082.
Filed February 3, 1905.
Rehearing denied March 30, 1905.]
1. Appeal and Ekrob. — Several Assignments. — Joint Exceptions.- — A several assignment of errors, where the exceptions below were joint, presents no question on appeal, p. 178.
2. Same. — New Trial. — Evidence.—Recovery Too Large. — In the absence of the evidence and of a showing in the special findings of an excess in the amount of 'the recovery, an assignment that the court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial, because the amount of' recovery was too large, presents no question, p. 178.
Erom Kosciusko Circuit Court; Lemuel W. Boyse, Special Judge.
Action by John C. Druckamiller against Jesse Coy and others. Erom a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
John C. Graves, John A. Dunlap and John M. Van Fleet} for appellants.
Vail & Wehmeyer, for appellee.

Opinion:
Black, J.
The appellee, as plaintiff, recovered judgment against three defendants, who are the appellants. There was a special finding, and the defendants jointly excepted to each conclusion of law. The appellants have severally assigned that the court erred in each conclusion of law. The exception having been taken by all the appellants jointly, the assignment of error by them severally is not permissible. Chappell v. Jasper County, etc., Gas Co. (1903), 31 Ind. App. 170; Home Electric Light, etc., Co. v. Collins (1903), 31 Ind. App. 493.
The overruling of the motion of the appellant Jesse Coy for a new trial because the amount of the recovery was too large is stated in the brief for the appellants as one of the errors relied upon for reversal. The evidence is not in the record, and the statement of facts in the special finding does not show that as to this appellant the amount of the recovery was excessive.
Judgment affirmed.