From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stirn v. Vohland

Court of Appeals of Indiana
May 12, 1936
1 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. Ct. App. 1936)

Opinion

No. 15,281.

Filed May 12, 1936.

APPEAL — Briefs — Statement of Record — Omission of Motion for New Trial. — Where only error assigned was in ruling on the motion for new trial and appellants' brief failed to set out the motion or its substance, or to show that time was allowed to file a bill of exceptions containing the evidence, or that any bill was ever approved by the court and filed, no question was presented for review.

From Franklin Circuit Court; Roscoe C. O'Byrne, Judge.

Action by August Vohland against John Stirn and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed. Affirmed. By the court in banc.

V.J. McCarty, for appellants.

O.W. Hubbard, for appellee.


This is an attempted appeal from a judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court. The only error assigned here is the action of the trial court in overruling the appellants' motion for a new trial. Neither a copy of the motion for a new trial nor the substance of the motion is set out in the appellants' briefs. However, the appellee in his brief has set out the substance of the motion for new trial designating as causes for reversal five grounds challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decision of the court; that the decision of the court is contrary to law; and error in assessing the amount of the recovery, it being too large. The brief of the appellants also fails to show that any time was given by the trial court in which to file any bills of exceptions containing the evidence and proceedings of the trial court or that any bill of exceptions was ever approved by such trial court or was ever filed or made a part of the record. In such a state of the record, no question is presented to this court for consideration. United Paper Board Co. v. Muncie, etc., Co. (1926), 84 Ind. App. 333, 151 N.E. 365; Indiana Service Corporation v. Dailey (1928), 87 Ind. App. 6, 159 N.E. 767; see also Melvin et al. v. Hamilton et al. (1936), 101 Ind. App. 456, 199 N.E. 602; Rule 21, Supreme and Appellate Courts of Indiana.

The judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Stirn v. Vohland

Court of Appeals of Indiana
May 12, 1936
1 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. Ct. App. 1936)
Case details for

Stirn v. Vohland

Case Details

Full title:STIRN ET AL. v. VOHLAND

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: May 12, 1936

Citations

1 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. Ct. App. 1936)
1 N.E.2d 654

Citing Cases

Union Insurance Co. of Indiana v. Glover

The only questions which appellant attempts to present, pertain to the evidence, which, without the bill of…

Heckman v. Howard

The only questions the appellant could present under the assignment of error pertain to the evidence, which,…