Schultz v. Rennick , 82 Ind. App. 606 ( 1925 )

Dausman, C. J.

(after making the foregoing statement) :

We are of the opinion that, as against the objections stated in the memorandum, the complaint is good. Rochester Bridge Co. v. McNeill (1919), 188 Ind. 432; Bailey v. London Guarantee, etc., Co. (1918), 72 Ind. App. 84. The court did not err in overruling the motion to arrest judgment.

The judgment is affirmed