Court Opinion

ID: 9719488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:54:12.170721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.725230
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Landis, C. J.
I cannot see how an unrecorded plat of real estate can be rendered inadmissible per se by a statute which simply requires that:
“Any person who may lay off any town or . . . subdivision of . .. lots [therein] . . . shall, previous to the sale of any lots [therein] . . . cause to be recorded in the recorder’s office ... a correct plat of such town, ... or subdivision, . . ,”1
This is particularly true as to a plat offered by a defendant and in a condemnation suit such as the case at bar, as such a proceeding attempting to force an involuntary sale on a defendant could not be considered as a voluntary sale under the statute.
Had appellant (plaintiff below) contended the plat, if admitted, could only be considered by the jury for limited purposes, it should have offered instructions to such effect; for the authority is well settled that on failure to ask for instructions limiting evidence to its legitimate purpose, the question is waived. The City of Delphi v. Lowery, Administratrix (1881), 74 Ind. 520, 524, 39 Am. Rep. 98; Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Pring (1912), 50 Ind. App. 566, 580, 96 N. E. 180, 185.
Note.—Reported in 157 N. E. 2d 181.

. Burn’s Indiana Statutes §48-801, 1950 Replacement, being Acts of 1905, ch. 129, §246, p. 219. It should be noted that Burns’ §48-803, 1950 Replacement, being Acts of 1905, ch, 329, §248, p. 219, is not here applicable.