Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Ind. 363

Van Pelt v. Corwine

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1855

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1855-06-07

<p>A motion for a new trial will not be entertained after a motion in arrest of judgment.</p> <p>A judgment will not be reversed on account of errors of tbe Court which were harmless.</p> <p>A suit will lie for services rendered by an infant under an unfulfilled special contract.</p>

Relies on Harney v. Owen · Dallas v. Hollingsworth · Cheek v. Glass

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-06-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1947

11 state decisions

301855186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Perkins, J.

¶1Assumpsit by Corwine against Van Pelt for work and labor. Pleas, the general issue, payment, accord and satisfaction, and some others that need not be mentioned. The cause was tried by a jury, and there was a verdict, and judgment upon it, for a fraction over 100 dollars.

¶2There was a motion made to arrest the judgment, and for a new trial.

¶3A demurrer was sustained to certain pleas.

¶4The work and labor were performed by the plaintiff for the defendant while a minor, and under a special contract not fulfilled.

¶5The motion in arrest of judgment was an affirmance of the verdict upon the evidence, and we shall not, therefore, look into that. The motion for a new trial was too late to be noticed. McKinney v. Springer, at the present term.

¶6The merits of the case were triable under the issues formed, and it is not of consequence to look into the correctness of the decisions on the demurrers. Error in those decisions could do no harm, and cases will not be reversed for harmless errors. Cheek v. Glass, 3 Ind. 286.

¶7A suit can be maintained for the value of services rendered by an infant under a special contract not fulfilled. Harney v. Owen, 4 Blackf. 337, deciding the contrary, was expressly overruled in Dallas v. Hollingsworth, 3 Ind. 537.

¶8The evidence not being before us, no question arises as to the parties to the suit.

Per Curiam.

¶9The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.

/6/ind/363 · .json · Public domain