Lewis v. Rowland

Decided March 30, 1892

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1892-03-30

<p>Pleading. — Supplemental Complaint. — Demurrer..—A demurrer will not lie to a supplemental complaint.</p> <p>Practice. — Conflict of Emdence. — If the evidence, though conflicting, tends to sustain the finding, the finding will not be disturbed.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1910

2 state decisions

Relies on Peters v. Banta · Farris v. Jones · Morey v. Ball

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-03-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McBride, J.

¶1Two errors are assigned, as follows:

“ 1st. The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the. supplemental complaint.

“ 2d. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.”

¶2The first presents no question for our consideration. A demurrer will not lie to a supplemental complaint. A supplemental complaint is not an independent pleading, but is a mere supplement, or addition, to the original complaint, the two together constituting the complaint. Morey v. Ball, 90 Ind. 450; Derry v. Derry, 98 Ind. 319; Farris v. Jones, 112 Ind. 498; Peters v. Banta, 120 Ind. 416.

*38Filed March 30, 1892.

¶3The second error assigned, as argued, presents no question but that of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the court. The evidence is conflicting, but there is abundance of evidence tending to sustain the finding, and we can not disregard it.

¶4Judgment affirmed.