Simpson v. Wilson
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cobler, Admr. v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1941)
- Estes v. Anderson Oil Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1931)
- Mayfield, Gdn. v. Rumford (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)
- Bruce v. State (Ind. 1927)
- Eastern, Etc., Plow Co. v. Stout, Exrx. (Ind. Ct. App. 1925)
- Eastern Rock Island Plow Co. v. Stout (Ind. Ct. App. 1925)
- Ellis v. City of Hammond (Ind. 1901)
- Franklin v. Lee (Ind. Ct. App. 1901)
- Rinehart v. State ex rel. Keith (Ind. Ct. App. 1899)
- Barnett v. State (Ind. 1895)
- Meurer v. State (Ind. 1891)
- Fleming v. McClaflin (Ind. Ct. App. 1891)
- Westbrook v. Aultman, Miller & Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1891)
- Richie v. State (Ind. 1877)
- Rater v. State (Ind. 1875)
- Shigley v. Snyder (Ind. 1874)
- Reno v. Robertson (Ind. 1874)
- Bartholomew v. Loy (Ind. 1873)
- Baldwin v. Biersdorfer (Indiana Super. Ct. 1871)
- Beebe v. Beebe (Circuit Court of the 9th Circuit of Michigan 1871)
- Walpole v. Atkinson (Ind. 1862)
- Crawford v. Martin (Ind. 1862)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
After a verdict for the plaintiff in this cause, the defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, upon the affidavit of himself and of the witnesses by whom he expected to make the additional proof. The Court overruled the motion
It is incumbent on the party asking a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence, to show, 1. That it has come to his knowledge since the trial; 2. That it was not owing to a want of diligence that he did not know it sooner; and 3. That it would probably produce a different result.
On the last point we can form no opinion, because we do not know what was proved on the trial. Where a party asks for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, he must set forth in his bill of exceptions the testimony which was submitted to the jury, so as to enable the appellate Court to judge whether the result would be altered by the new testimony.
The new testimony may have been cumulative only; and if so, a new trial will not be granted; and we can not know that it is not cumulative unless w;e are informed what had been proved before. We must presume that the decision of the Common Pleas in refusing a new trial was right.
The judgment is affirmed, with 3 per cent, damages and costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.