Deatty v. Shirley
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Perley v. Schmidt Cut Stone Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1911)
- Smith v. Biesiada (Ind. 1910)
- Douglas v. Indianapolis & Northwestern Traction Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1906)
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
Complaint in two paragraphs, the first to declare certain conveyances of real estate to be fraudulent, and the second to declare the same to be mortgages. The appellants, who were the defendants below, claim error in the overruling of their motions fora venire denovo and for a new trial.
The motion for a new venire was not made until after judgment had been entered. The motion itself specifies no objection to the verdict. The record fails to show that any defect was pointed out to the court at the hearing. The objection made here, namely, that certain special interrogatories were not properly answered, is not available, for two reasons: It was not pointed out before the discharge of .the jury, and the remedy is not by a motion for a venire de novo. West v. Cavins, 74 Ind. 265; Byram v. Galbraith, 75 Ind. 134; McClintock v. Theiss, 74 Ind. 200; Shaw v. Merchants National Bank, 60 Ind. 83.
We can not disturb the verdict for want of evidence. There is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the fraudulent intent charged in the first paragraph of the complaint.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.