Service v. Gambrel
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. Indiana State Bank (Ind. Ct. App. 1921)
- Jordan v. Jordan (Ind. Ct. App. 1922)
- Cole Carriage Co. v. Hornbeck (Ind. Ct. App. 1909)
- Stout v. Gaar, Scott & Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1901)
- Winstandley v. Breyfogle (Ind. 1897)
- Smith v. State ex rel. Hamill (Ind. 1895)
- Ferris v. Udell (Ind. 1894)
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
The appellant discusses the questions arising on the special finding and no others, and, under the long settled practice, must be deemed to have waived all other questions.
The appellees contend that the special finding is not properly a part of the record. This contention must prevail. There is neither a bill of exceptions nor a special order making the finding a part of the record, nor is the finding signed by the judge who tried the case, and it can not be regarded as anything more than a general finding. Peoria, etc., Ins. Co. v. Walser, 22 Ind. 73; McClellan v. Bond, 92 Ind. 424, and cases cited; Wallace v. Kirtley, 98 Ind. 485.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.