Case Name: Goodwine et al. v. Crane, Trustee
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1872-11
Citations: 41 Ind. 335
Docket Number: 
Parties: Goodwine et al. v. Crane, Trustee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 335–337

Head Matter:
Goodwine et al. v. Crane, Trustee.
Practice.—Bill of Exceptions.—Evidence.—A paper purporting to be a bill of exceptions consisted of a certified agreement, signed by counsel of both parties and the judge of the court below, that “the following was all the evidence that was offered in said cause by both parties, together with all the exhibits, plats, maps, etc., and is submitted to this court by the agreement of the parlies as all the evidence,” to which, after the signatures of counsel and the judge, were attached various documents and what purported to be the evidence of witnesses.
Held, that the evidence was not in the record.
Same.—The Supreme Court cannot decide whether the finding' of the .court below is or is not sustained by the evidence, where the evidence is not in the record by bill of exceptions.
Same.—Judgment.—The assignment, as a reason for a new trial, that the judgment of the court is not sustained by the law and is contrary to law, presents no question for the decision of the Supreme Court.
Same.—Under the code, a written instrument, or any documentary evidence, need not be copied into a bill of exceptions, but may be referred to, if its appropriate place be designated by the words “here insert;” but testimony given in the cause must be set out in the bill of exceptions.
Same.—The statement in a bill of exceptions, that “ the following was all the evidence oifered ” does not show how much evidence was admitted.
Record.—It is improper to make up a record for the Supreme Court in the form of a continuous roll.
APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

Opinion:
Downey, J.
—This was an action by the appellee against the appellants, to recover possession of fractional sections three, ten, fifteen, twenty-two, twenty-seven, and thirty-four, in township twenty-two, north of range ten west, in Warren county, Indiana, containing in all two hundred and twenty-seven acres and thirty-eight hundredths, of which it was alleged the defendants held possession without right, etc. There was another paragraph of the complaint, which sought to quiet the title of the plaintiff to the same lands.
The defendants pleaded the general denial, and also a second paragraph, which was, on motion of the plaintiff, stricken out. The issue was tried by the court, and there was a finding for the plaintiff A motion by the defendant for a new trial was overruled, and judgment rendered on the finding.
The only error properly assigned is. the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The reasons assigned in the written motion why a new trial should be granted are, first, that the finding of the court is not sustained by the evidence, and is contrary to the evidence; second, that the judgment of the court is not sustained by the law, and is contrary to the law.
The evidence is not in the record, and for this reason we cannot decide whether the court improperly refused to grant a new trial for the first reason stated, or not. We do not know what is intended by the second reason. There is in the record what purports to be a special finding by the court; but it was not signed by the judge, nor incorporated in any bill of exceptions in the record—Roberts v. Smith, 34 Ind. 550—and there were no conclusions of law excepted to by either party. The second reason for a new trial does not, according to any law, or any practice sustained by this court, present any question for decision. The Board of Commissioners of Lagrange Co. v. Newman, 35 Ind. 10; Leffel v. Leffel, 35 Ind. 76; The Ohio, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hays, 35 Ind. 173. There is nothing for us to decide.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.