Egger v. Huff

Full title: EGGER v. HUFF

Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Oct 5, 1948

81 N.E.2d 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 1948)

81 N.E.2d 378

Opinion

No. 17,768.

Filed October 5, 1948.

1. APPEAL — Briefs — Assignment of Errors — Specification of Errors Not Sufficient. — An appellant's brief presents no question for review, where the brief under the heading "Errors relied upon for reversal" did not set forth any errors except such as would be grounds for a new trial, but there was nothing in the brief to inform the court whether there was a motion for a new trial or whether appellant intended to assign such errors independently. p. 462.

2. APPEAL — Briefs — Concise Statement of Record Omitted — No Question Presented for Review. — Where no attempt was made by appellant to set forth in his brief a "concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents every error and exception relied upon," as required by Rule 2-17, Rules of the Supreme Court, appellant's brief presents no question for review. p. 462.

3. APPEAL — Briefs — Proposition and Points Not Supported by Authority — No Question Presented for Review. — Where the propositions and points set forth in appellant's brief are not supported by authority, as required by Rule 2-17, Rules of the Supreme Court, no question is presented by such brief for review. p. 462.

From the Marshall Circuit Court; Alvin F. Marsh, Judge.

Action between Roscoe L. Egger and Oliver Huff. From the judgment, the former appeals.

Affirmed. By the court in banc.

Albert B. Chipman, of Plymouth, and Roscoe L. Egger, of Bremen, attorneys for appellant. Tom R. Huff, of Plymouth, attorney for appellee.

FLANAGAN, J.

Appellant's brief presents no question for review for the following reasons:

1. Under the heading "Errors relied upon for reversal," no errors are set forth except such as would be grounds for a new trial, but there is nothing in the brief to inform the 1. court whether there was a motion for a new trial or whether appellant is attempting to assign these errors independently.

2. There is no attempt to set forth a "concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents every error and 2. exception relied upon," as required by Rule 2-17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

3. None of appellant's propositions or points are 3. supported by authority as required by the above rule.

Judgment affirmed.

NOTE. — Reported in 81 N.E.2d 378.