Case ID: ind_188/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Townsend, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Advisory Board of Morgan Township, Harrison County, v. State of Indiana, ex rel. Martin et al.
    [No. 23,472.
    Filed April 24, 1919.
    Rehearing denied June 3, 1919.]
    1. Appeal. — Record on Appeal. — Sufficiency.—Alleged error in overruling a demurrer to a paragraph of complaint will not be considered where the appellant’s brief does not set out such paragraph, the demurrer, the memorandum, nor any statement of the record by which the court on appeal can tell what the contentions are, as required by the fifth clause of Rule 22. p. 332.
    2. Appeal. — Briefs.—Statute.—Section 3, Acts 1917 p. 523, is void so far as briefing is concerned, p. 332.
    From Harrison Circuit Court; William Ridley, Judge.
    Proceeding by the State of Indiana, on the relation of 0swell Martin and others, against the advisory board of Morgan township, Harrison county. From a judgment for the relators, the defendant appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      C. W. Cook, Kirkham & O’Bannon, for appellant.
    
      Thos. yS'. Jones and Clyde R. Lottick, for appellees.
   Townsend, J.

— Appellee obtained a judgment of mandate against appellant. The complaint was in four paragraphs. . The trial court sustained demurrer to all, except the third. The cause was tried by jury on issue formed by answer to the third paragraph. Appellant says in its brief that it relies for reversal of the cause upon error of the court in overruling the demurrer to the third paragraph of the complaint. Appellant’s brief does not set out this paragraph of complaint; does not set out the demurrer thereto; does not set out memorandum attached to the demurrer; does not give any statement of the record by which this court can tell what its contentions are. Sub-division 5, Rule 22. §3, chapter 143, Acts 1917 p. 523, is void so far as briefing is concerned. Solimeto v. State (1919), ante 170, 122 N. E. 578.

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 123 N. E. 108.