Case ID: ind-app_50/html/0263-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Adams, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cronin v. Logansport Daily Reporter Company et al.
    [No. 7,591.
    Filed April 23, 1912.]
    1. Appeal. — Assignment of Errors. — Overruling Motion for Continuance. — The overruling of a motion for a continuance is cause for a new trial, but cannot be made an independent assignment of error, and when so assigned no question is presented, p. 263.
    2. Appeal. Briefs. — Waiver of Error. — Alleged error in overruling a motion to reinstate a cause is waived by failing to set out the motion or its substance in appellants brief and failing to state any point or proposition of law thereon or to cite any authority in support thereof, p. 263.
    Prom White Circuit Court; Charles W. Hanley, Special Judge.
    Action by Bessie Cronin against the Logansport Daily Reporter Company and others. Prom a judgment for defendants, the .plaintiff appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Bessie Cronin, in pro. per., for appellant.
    
      Joseph T. Tomlinson and George A. Gamble, for appellees.
   Adams, J.

— The errors assigned and relied on for reversal in this cause are that the court erred (1) in overruling appellant’s motion for a continuance, and (2) in overruling appellant’s motion to reinstate said cause.

The overruling of a motion for a continuance is cause for a new trial, but cannot be made an independent assignment or error, and when so assigned, no question is presented. Arbuckle v. McCoy (1876), 53 Ind. 63; Westerfield v. Spencer (1878), 61 Ind. 339; Hutts v. Shoaf (1882), 88 Ind. 395.

Appellant has waived the second specification of error, by failing to set out in her brief the motion to reinstate, or the substance thereof. She has also failed tb state any point or proposition of law, and has cited no authority supporting this specification of error. Pitts burgh, etc., R. Co. v. Collins (1907), 168 Ind. 467, 472, 80 N. E. 415.

There being no question presented for decision by this conrt, the judgment is affirmed.

Lairy, J., not participating.

Note. — Reported in 98 N. E. 303. See, also, under (1) 2 Cyc. 999; (2) 2 Cyc. 1014. As to when denial of motion for a continuance is error, see 47 Am. Dec. 101.