first specification error in Indiana

1972(Citing cases.) ’ ” The court further quoted from Cooper v. Teeters (1969), 146 Ind. App. 150 , 253 N. E. 2d 277 , as follows: “ ‘The appellant’s first specification of error in her motion for a new trial alleged that the decision of the trial court in directing the jury to return a verdict for the defendants was contrary to law.

1972(Citing cases.) ’ ” The court further quoted from Cooper v. Teeters (1969), 146 Ind. App. 150 , 253 N. E. 2d 277 , as follows: “ ‘The appellant’s first specification of error in her motion for a new trial alleged that the decision of the trial court in directing the jury to return a verdict for the defendants was contrary to law.

1972Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), 145 Ind. App. 141 , 250 N. E. 2d 259 , speaking of negative judgments, said: “The first part of Specification No. 1, to the effect that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, presents no question for our consideration since this is an appeal from a negative verdict.” [Citing Hinds v. McNair (1955), 235 Ind. 34 , 129 N. E. 2d 553 .] We shall now direct our attention to the first specification of error, that the decision of the trial court was contrary to law.

1972Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), 145 Ind. App. 141 , 250 N. E. 2d 259 , speaking of negative judgments, said: “The first part of Specification No. 1, to the effect that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, presents no question for our consideration since this is an appeal from a negative verdict.” [Citing Hinds v. McNair (1955), 235 Ind. 34 , 129 N. E. 2d 553 .] We shall now direct our attention to the first specification of error, that the decision of the trial court was contrary to law.

1968This calls for us to apply the rule stated in Pokraka v. *632 Lummus Co. (1952), 230 Ind. 523 , 104 N. E. 2d 669 , wherein the Supreme Court said: “To determine this question we will consider only the evidence most favorable to appellee, together with any reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” In this case, the record shows that all of the exhibits offered by both parties were received and admitted in evidence, that the testimony on both direct and cross-examination covered all of the elements of the operation of the farm; that the court had before it the contract of the parties;

1968This calls for us to apply the rule stated in Pokraka v. *632 Lummus Co. (1952), 230 Ind. 523 , 104 N. E. 2d 669 , wherein the Supreme Court said: “To determine this question we will consider only the evidence most favorable to appellee, together with any reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom.” In this case, the record shows that all of the exhibits offered by both parties were received and admitted in evidence, that the testimony on both direct and cross-examination covered all of the elements of the operation of the farm; that the court had before it the contract of the parties;

1972Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), 145 Ind. App. 141 , 250 N. E. 2d 259 , speaking of negative judgments, said: “The first part of Specification No. 1, to the effect that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, presents no question for our consideration since this is an appeal from a negative verdict.” [Citing Hinds v. McNair (1955), 235 Ind. 34 , 129 N. E. 2d 553 .] We shall now direct our attention to the first specification of error, that the decision of the trial court was contrary to law.

1972Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), 145 Ind. App. 141 , 250 N. E. 2d 259 , speaking of negative judgments, said: “The first part of Specification No. 1, to the effect that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, presents no question for our consideration since this is an appeal from a negative verdict.” [Citing Hinds v. McNair (1955), 235 Ind. 34 , 129 N. E. 2d 553 .] We shall now direct our attention to the first specification of error, that the decision of the trial court was contrary to law.

1971In any event, there is still the question of the first specification of error wherein the Appellant cited Jose Balz Corp. v. DeWitt, 93 Ind. App. 672 , 176 N. E. 864 (1931), as authority for reversal.

1971In any event, there is still the question of the first specification of error wherein the Appellant cited Jose Balz Corp. v. DeWitt, 93 Ind. App. 672 , 176 N. E. 864 (1931), as authority for reversal.

1971Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), 145 Ind. App. 141 , 250 N.E. 2d 259 , 18 Ind. Dec. 257 ; Mobley v. City of Evansville (1960), 130 Ind. App. 575 , 167 N.E. 2d 473 .

1971Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), 145 Ind. App. 141 , 250 N.E. 2d 259 , 18 Ind. Dec. 257 ; Mobley v. City of Evansville (1960), 130 Ind. App. 575 , 167 N.E. 2d 473 .

1970In Paxton v. Ferrell, 144 Ind. App. 124 , 244 N. E. 2d 439 (1969), we determined under a very similar procedural situation that the refusal by the trial court to permit the amendment of pleadings after trial commenced and before final judgment was not such an abuse of discretion to necessitate our reversal.

1970In Paxton v. Ferrell, 144 Ind. App. 124 , 244 N. E. 2d 439 (1969), we determined under a very similar procedural situation that the refusal by the trial court to permit the amendment of pleadings after trial commenced and before final judgment was not such an abuse of discretion to necessitate our reversal.

1966Pokraka v. Lum- *510 mus Co. (1952), 230 Ind. 523 , 104 N. E. 2d 669 ; Rowe v. Johnson (1945), 223 Ind. 289 , 60 N. E. 2d 529 .

1966Pokraka v. Lum- *510 mus Co. (1952), 230 Ind. 523 , 104 N. E. 2d 669 ; Rowe v. Johnson (1945), 223 Ind. 289 , 60 N. E. 2d 529 .

1965Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35 , 188 N. E. 2d 537 .

1965Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35 , 188 N. E. 2d 537 .

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Co. v. Angemeier (1912), 51 Ind. App. 258 , 99 N. E. 500 ; Shriver v. Montgomery (1914), 181 Ind. 108 , 103 N. E. 945 ; Ewbank’s Manual §§127, 235; Elliott, App. Proc. §§299, 300, 308, 309. 2. 3. 4.

1914Co. v. Angemeier (1912), 51 Ind. App. 258 , 99 N. E. 500 ; Shriver v. Montgomery (1914), 181 Ind. 108 , 103 N. E. 945 ; Ewbank’s Manual §§127, 235; Elliott, App. Proc. §§299, 300, 308, 309. 2. 3. 4.

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Co. v. Angemeier (1912), 51 Ind. App. 258 , 99 N. E. 500 ; Shriver v. Montgomery (1914), 181 Ind. 108 , 103 N. E. 945 ; Ewbank’s Manual §§127, 235; Elliott, App. Proc. §§299, 300, 308, 309. 2. 3. 4.

1914Co. v. Angemeier (1912), 51 Ind. App. 258 , 99 N. E. 500 ; Shriver v. Montgomery (1914), 181 Ind. 108 , 103 N. E. 945 ; Ewbank’s Manual §§127, 235; Elliott, App. Proc. §§299, 300, 308, 309. 2. 3. 4.

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1914Among the cases showing the insufficiency of the first specification of error we cite the following: Bowman v. Cook (1912), 49 Ind. App. 509 , 97 N. E. 553 ; Weaver v. Apple (1897), 147 Ind. 304 , 46 N. E. 642 ; Scott v. Lafayette Gas Co. (1908), 42 Ind. App. 614, 616 , 86 N. E. 495 ; Town of Whiting v. Dobb (1899), 152 Ind. 157 , 52 N. E. 759 ; Spitzer v. Miller (1905), 35 Ind. App. 116 , 73 N. E. 833 ; Spitzer v. Wright (1905), 36 Ind. App. 558 , 76 N. E. 261 ; Hayes v. Locus (1906), 37 Ind. App. 104 , 76 N. E. 649 : Johnston Glass Co. v. Lucas (1905), 34 Ind. App. 418, 419 , 72 N. E. 1102 ;

1906It is argued by the appellant that the complaint should allege that the master had knowledge of the defect a sufficient length of time before the injury, by the exercise of reasonable care, to have made the necessary repairs, or at least to notify the servant of the danger; citing, Malott v. Sample (1905), 164 Ind. 645 ; Seaboard Mfg.