Case Name: Adams et al. v. Ulsh
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1901-04-19
Citations: 26 Ind. App. 516
Docket Number: No. 3,704
Parties: Adams et al. v. Ulsh.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
Adams et al. v. Ulsh.
[No. 3,704.
Filed April 19, 1901.]
Appeal and Error. — Assignment of Error.— Continuance.— New Trial. — Overruling a motion for a continuance cannot be assigned as an independent error on appeal, but must be presented in a motion for a new trial, p. 517.
Same. — Motions.—Record.—No question is presented for review upon the action of the court in overruling a motion to separate the causes of action, where the motion is not made a part of the record by bill of exceptions or otherwise, p. 517.
Same. — Assignment of Error. — New Trial. — Errors in admitting evidence, and that the verdict is contrary to law and the evidence, cannot be assigned independently, but are properly causes for anew trial, p. 517.
Same. — Motions.— Continuance.— Affidavit.— Record. — An assignment in a motion for a new trial based upon the refusal of the court to grant a continuance upon the affidavit of defendant’s physician that she was not physically able to attend the trial cannot be considered on appeal, where the motion and affidavit are not brought into the record by bill of exceptions or otherwise, p. 517.
Appeal and Error. — Motions for New Trial. — Evidence.—Record.— Assignments in a motion for a new trial on the admission of evidence, and that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, cannot be considered on appeal, where the evidence is not in the record. p. 517.
From the Kosciusko Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
Summy & Summy, for appellants.
W. D. Frazer and O. Oldfather, for appellee.

Opinion:
Robinson, J.
Refusing a continuance can not be assigned independently as error, but must be questioned by stating it as a ground in a motion for a new trial. Westerfield v. Spencer, 61 Ind. 339.
The court overruled a motion to separate the causes of action. As this motion has not been made part of the record by bill of exceptions, or otherwise, no question is presented. Cargar v. Fee, 140 Ind. 572; Shields v. McMahan, 101 Ind. 591.
Errors in admitting evidence, and that the verdict is contrary to law and the evidence, can not be assigned independently, but are properly causes for a new trial.
The last error assigned is overruling the motion of Leah Adams for a new trial. The first ground of the motion is the refusal of the court to grant a continuance upon the affidavit of her physician that she was not physically able to attend the trial. As this motion and affidavit are not brought into the record by any bill of exceptions, or otherwise, no question is presented. Rains v. Bolin, 6 Ind. App. 181.
The remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial, the admission of certain evidence, and that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, depend upon the evidence. No question is presented for the reason that no attempt even has been made to bring the evidence into the record'.
Judgment affirmed.