Sidener v. Davis

Woods, C. J. It is claimed that the court erred in rescinding an order remanding the cause to the Bartholomew Circuit Court for trial, and in overruling the motion for a new trial. If there was any error in rescinding the order remanding the cause to the court in which it originated, it should have been, but was not, made a cause in the motion for a new trial. Such is the rule in reference to the granting or refusing of a [343] -change of venue. Bane v. Ward, 77 Ind. 153. A.nd the same practice is applicable to orders for the remanding of a cause to the court whence the change was taken. Besides, the bill -of exceptions on this subject docs not show the order for the remanding- of the canse, nor when and for what reasons it was ■made; and without these the correctness of the vacating order -can not be considered. It is claimed that there was error in the assessment of ■damages, but the question arises upon conflicting evidence, .-and is not available on appeal. Judgment affirmed.