Case ID: ind_183/html/0483-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Erwin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Town of Carlisle v. Drake.
    [No. 22,816.
    Filed June 2, 1915.
    Rehearing denied June 25, 1915.]
    1. Appeax. — Presenting Questions for Revieiv. — Refusal of Instructions. — The refusal to give an instruction can only be presented for review through the medium of a motion for a new trial, p. 484.
    2. Appeax. — Revieio. — Affirmance. — Where the errors relied on were the refusal of a peremptory instruction and the overruling of a motion for new trial, and neither the instruction nor the motion for new trial is set out in appellant’s brief, the judgment will be affirmed, p. 484.
    From Sullivan Circuit Court; Wm. E. Bridwell, Judge.
    Action by Alice B. Drake against the town of Carlisle. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      
      J. R. Cauble, for appellant.
    
      Charles D. Hunt and Gilbert W. Gambill, for appellee.
   Erwin, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for personal injuries in favor of appellee against appellant. The-assignment of errors are (1) that the court erred in refusing a peremptory instruction for appellant, (2) the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The failure to give an instruction tendered can not he assigned as error in this court, hut should he assigned as cause for a new trial. Neither the motion to direct a verdict, nor the motion for a new trial is set out in appellant’s brief as required hy Rule 22 of this court. Por failure to comply with this rule the judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 109 N. E. 39. See, also, under (1) 29 Cyc, 744; (2) 3 C. J. 1417; 2 Cyc. 1015, 1014.