Opinion
No. 27,851.
Filed April 1, 1943.
1. APPEAL — Law of Case — Judgment Quieting Title — Effect of Judgment in Prior Action. — In an appeal before the Supreme Court for the second time, attacking a judgment quieting title of certain of the appellees to the same real estate involved in the former appeal, the decision therein is the law of the case in so far as it is applicable. p. 305.
2. APPEAL — Briefs — Preparation — Failure to Comply With Rules — No Question Presented. — Where only by searching the record could the Supreme Court determine the necessary or proper parties, because 14 persons were named in the assignment of errors without designation as appellants or appellees, and where appellants' brief did not set out the text or substance of the assignment of errors, the findings and judgment, or the motion for new trial except as the latter was set out under the Propositions and Authorities portion of the brief, there was a failure of compliance with the Supreme Court Rule concerning preparation of briefs and appellants' brief was insufficient to present any question on the merits. p. 305.
3. APPEAL — Briefs — Sufficiency — Application of Court Rules Concerning Preparation. — While the Supreme Court indulges a practical liberality in passing upon the sufficiency of briefs, the application of the rules may not be relaxed to the point of requiring the court to search the record for grounds for reversal. p. 305.
From the DuBois Circuit Court; Louis A. Savage, Special Judge.
Action between Wabash Township, Gibson County, Indiana, and others, and David M. Cooper and others, to quiet title to certain real estate. From the judgment entered, the former appealed.
Affirmed.
Hovey C. Kirk, of Princeton, for appellants.
Embree Hall, of Princeton, and Cooper, Royse, Gambill Crawford, of Terre Haute, for appellees.
This case is before us for the second time. See Hughes v. Fifer (1941), 218 Ind. 198, 31 N.E.2d 634. Apparently, it is an attack upon a judgment quieting the title of certain of 1. the appellees to the same real estate involved in the former review. That decision is, therefore, the law of the case insofar as it is applicable. Dickason v. Dickason (1942), 219 Ind. 683, 40 N.E.2d 965.
Only by searching the record could we determine who are necessary or proper parties. Fourteen persons are named in the assignment of errors, without designation as appellants or 2. appellees. The appellants' brief does not undertake to set out the text or the substance of the assignment of errors, the findings and judgment, or the motion for a new trial, except as the latter is quoted under Propositions and Authorities. This is not a compliance with the requirements of Rule 2-17(e) (1940 Revision).
While this court indulges a practical liberality in passing upon the sufficiency of briefs, the application of the rules may not be relaxed to the point of requiring us to search the 3. record for grounds to reverse a judgment. Kimmick v. Linn (1940), 217 Ind. 485, 29 N.E.2d 207.
We are obliged to hold that the appellants' brief is insufficient to present any question on the merits.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOTE. — Reported in 47 N.E.2d 611.