Stabno v. Leeds

Decided June 28, 1901

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1901-06-28

<p>Trial. — Special Finding. — Record.—Where what is termed a special finding of facts is not signed by the judge and the record contains no conclusions of law thereon, the finding will be treated as a general finding, p. 889.</p> <p>New Trial. — Grounds.—A ground in a motion for a new trial that “the finding and judgment of the court is excessive in amount,” presents no question where the action is on contract, p. 889.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1912

1 state decisions

Relies on Branch v. Faust · McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Gray · Davis v. Montgomery

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1901-06-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Curiam.

¶1The record contains no conclusions of law to what is termed a special finding of the facts. Besides, the special finding is not signed by the judge. As the record comes to us it must be treated only as a general finding. McClellan v. Bond, 92 Ind. 424; McCray v. Humes, 116 Ind. 103; Branch v. Faust, 115 Ind. 464; Smith v. Goetz, 20 Ind. App. 142.

¶2A ground in a motion for a new trial that “the finding and judgment of the court is excessive in amount”, presents no question where the action is on contract. Moore v. State, ex rel., 114 Ind. 414; McCormick, etc., Co. v. Gray, 114 Ind. 340; §568 Burns 1894, §559 Horner 1897. See, also; Davis v. Montgomery, 123 Ind. 587.

¶3But even if properly stated as a ground in the motion for a new trial no question is presented, because no attempt has been made to bring the evidence into the record.

¶4Judgment affirmed.