Case Name: Cobb et al. v. Taylor et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1892-12-14
Citations: 133 Ind. 605
Docket Number: No. 15,967
Parties: Cobb et al. v. Taylor et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 605–608

Head Matter:
No. 15,967.
Cobb et al. v. Taylor et al.
Assignment oe Erbob. — Failure to Discuss in Brief. — Refusal of Court to Consider. — Mere assertion of error by appellant in his brief, unsupported by argument or authority, can avail nothing on appeal, as the court will refuse to consider it.
Description oe Land. — So Many Rods Off South Side of a Quarter Section. —Meaning of. — Sufficiency.—Where the court instructed the jury that land described as “seventy-eight rods off the south side of the northwest quarter of section number twenty-five,” in a given township and range, “describes a fractional part of said quarter seventy-eight rods wide, on the south side of said quarter, and extending along the entire length,” such instruction was correct^ being supported both by the deed and the evidence; the construction contended for by defendants, that the above description meant seventy-eight square rods of land, was not tenable.
Filed December 14, 1892.
From the Wabash Circuit Court.
B. M. Cobb and C. W. Watkins, for appellants.
W. H. Trammel, M. L. Spencer, W. A. Branyan and J. C. Branyan, for appellees.

Opinion:
McBride, J.
The appellants assign twelve alleged errors. They have, however, failed to discuss any except the •first, and the others are, for that reason, waived. It is indeed questionable if there is any discussion of any question presented by the record. The first error assigned is that the court erred in overruling a demurrer to" the complaint. Counsel, assuming that the complaint proceeds upon a certain theory, cite authorities to show it bad. An examination of the complaint renders it clear that they have entirely misconceived its theory and scope, and neither the argument nor the authorities cited are in point. 'So far as the other alleged errors are concerned, counsel have contented themselves with the assertion of their opinion that the court erred, without either argument or authority cited, and, indeed, without indicating the character or nature of the asserted error. The rules of appellate procedure will not justify us in spending time in the examination of the record for the discovery and correction of alleged errors which counsel have not seen fit to discuss. Elliott's Appellate Procedure, section 445.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.