Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Ind. 362

Ball v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1862

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1862-05-15

<p>A judgment recovered after a continuance which wns erroneously granted at a former term, should not, for that cause, be reversed.</p> <p>Where the evidence tends to sustain the finding and judgment, the Supreme Court will not disturb them.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1867

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Action by the appellee against the appellant upon an administration bond. Trial by the Court; finding and judgment for the plaintiff.

¶2An error complained of is, that the Court improperly continued the cause from one term to another on the application of the plaintiff. We have not examined as to the correctness of the continuance, as, if it was wrong, the judgment after-wards obtained, should not, for that cause, be reversed. It can not be, that an error committed in continuing a cause will prevent a valid judgment from being afterwards rendered. *363If so, such a continuance must, sooner or later, put the plaintiff effectually out of Court, for any judgment he might after-wards obtain, however right and proper in itself, would have to be reversed.

S. G. Wilson, for the appellant.Thomas $ Bistine, for the appellee.

¶3The only other point made is, that, the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the finding. The evidence is such that, under the repeated rulings of this Court, we -do not feel author-' ized to interfere; it tends to sustain the finding.

¶4The judgment below is affirmed, with costs and one per cent, damages.

/18/ind/362 · .json · Public domain