Case ID: ind_183/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Spencer, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harvey et al. v. French et al.
    [No. 22,799.
    Filed November 4, 1915.]
    
      Appeal, — Review.—Ruling on Motion for Veio Wrial. — Briefs.—No question is presented on the overruling of a motion for new trial, where appellants’ brief contained neither the motion nor its substance, nor any reference to the alleged error in the propositions and authorities; and the defect was not reached by an additional brief which disclosed no effort to fully comply with Rule 22.
    From Pike Circuit Court; John L. Bretz, Judge.
    Action between Thomas H. French and another, and Thomas Harvey and another. From the judgment rendered, Harvey and another appeal. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1405 Burns 1914, Acts 1901 p. 590.)
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      William Reister, for appellants.
    
      Phelps F. Darby, Lucius C. Embree and Morton C. Embree, for appellees.
   Spencer, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment quieting in appellees the title to certain real estate. The only error relied on for reversal is “that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial”. Neither the motion for a new trial nor the substance thereof is anywhere brought to the attention of this court in appellants’ brief and in the propositions and authorities contained in said brief no reference, either special or general, is made to the claimed error in overruling said motion. No question, therefore, is properly presented for our consideration. Christie v. Slinginger (1915), ante 658, 110 N. E. 61.

Appellants’ brief was filed by their then attorney of record on October 3, 1913, and in appellees’ brief, filed on December 12, 1913, attention was called to appellants’ failure to comply with the rules of this court. On January 22, 1914, other counsel appeared for appellants and filed pleadings in this court. On October 25, 1915, they filed an additional brief for appellants, but in none of said proceedings is an effort made to comply fully with Rule 22, and no question, therefore, is presented for consideration. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported, in 110 N. E. 62. See, also, 3 C. J. 1409, 1415 ; 2 Cye. 1013, 1014.