Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana (Volume 164) baixar o livro de graça

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1905 Excerpt: ... Hudelson v. Hudelson. HUDELSON ET AL. V. HUDELSON ET AL. No. 20,547. Filed May 23, 1905. 1. Constitutional Law.--Supreme Court.--Imposition of Trial Court Duties Thereon.--The legislature has no power to confer or impose trial court duties upon the Supreme Court. Parkison v. Thompson (1905), ante 009, followed, p. 694. 2. Appeal And Error.--Statutes.--Construction.--Weighing Conftictii'i Oral Evidence.--The Supreme Court can not weigh conflicting oral evidence under the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 338) in order to set a.vido the decision of the trial court. Gillett, J., dissenting, p. 697. From Henry Circuit Court; John W. Headinglon, Special Judge. Action by Emory Hudelson and others against Lennaeus L. Hudelson and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Transferred from Appellate Court under 1337u Burns 1901, Acts 1901, p. 590. Affirmed. McKee & Trabue, Forkner & Forkner and Barnard & Jeffrey, for appellants. Eugene Bundy and Smith, Duncan, Hornbrook & Smith, for appellees. Montgomery, J.--This action was brought by appellants to set aside a deed made by their father, William Hudelson, and for partition of real estate. The complaint charged unsoundness of mind and undue influence, and was answered by general denial. A trial by the court resulted in a finding for appellees. Appellants' motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment rendered against them for costs. The overruling of the motion for a new trial is the only alleged error assigned; and the only ground of the motion, not waived, is that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law. 1. The provisions of the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 338) are invoked, and we are asked to determine whether or Hudclson v. Hudelson. not the judg...