Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

143 Ind. 1

Hoskinson v. Cavender

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 12, 1895

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1895-12-12

<p>Appellate Procedure. — Neto Trial. — Newly Discovered Evidence.— Affidavits Not in Record,. — Alleged error in denying a motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence will not be considered on appeal, where the affidavits in support of such motion are not made a part of the record.</p> <p>Same. — Reversal of Judgment. — Weight of Evidence. — A judgment will not be reversed in the Supreme Court on the weight of the evidence.</p>

Relies on Lawrence v. Van Buskirk · Harper v. State ex rel. Adamson · Applegate v. Baxley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-12-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1952

7 state decisions

301895190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Monks, J.

¶1Appellee brought this action to contest the will of her father, and revoke the probate thereof. The trial resulted in a finding for appellee; and, over a *2motion for a.new trial, judgment was rendered, setting aside the will and revoking the probate.

Filed December 12, 1895.

¶2Appellant assigns as error that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

¶3One of the reasons assigned for a new trial was for newly discovered evidence. The affidavits in support of this cause for a new trial are not contained in any bill of exceptions, nor otherwise made a part of the record. This reason for a new trial cannot, therefore, he considered. Applegate v. Baxley, 93 Ind. 147 ; Harper v. State, ex rel., 101 Ind. 109, on page 112.

¶4The other causes for a new trial were, that “the finding is contrary to the evidence,” and also “contrary to the law.” We have carefully read the evidence, and, while we find it conflicting, there is evidence which supports the finding on every material point.

¶5The rule is well settled that this court will not reverse a judgment on the weight of the evidence, although the weight of the evidence might, in our opinion, be against the finding of the trial court. Lawrence v. Van Buskirk, 140 Ind. 481, and cases cited.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/143/ind/1 · .json · Public domain