Case Name: Martindale et al. v. Corbin
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1924-12-19
Citations: 82 Ind. App. 324
Docket Number: No. 11,929
Parties: Martindale et al. v. Corbin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
Martindale et al. v. Corbin.
[No. 11,929.
Filed December 19, 1924.]
Appeal.—Assigned errors depending; on evidence not considered when evidence not in record.—Where the errors relied on for reversal require a consideration of the evidence, appellant’s brief must contain a recital of the evidence, referring to the pages and lines where the evidence may be found, and if it does not, the errors assigned will not be considered.
From Green Circuit Court; Thomas VanBuskirk, Judge.
Action between Roy Martindale and others and Thomas I. Corbin. From the judgment rendered, the former appeal.
Affirmed.
Stinkard & Slinkard, for appellants.
Guy H. Humphreys and W. V. Moffet, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only proper assignment of error relates to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial. Each specification in this motion requires a consideration of the evidence. Appellee calls attention to the fact that appellants have not set out a concise statement of the evidence in their brief and insists that no question is presented for our determination. The decisions of the Supreme and this court sustaining appellee's contention as to each specification in the motion for a new trial are numerous and decisive. See Clemens v. Stoner, Exr. (1920), 73 Ind. App. 370; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Retz (1919), 71 Ind. App. 581, 585, 586; Leedy v. Idle, Trustee (1918), 69 Ind. App. 105, 107; Webster v. Bligh (1912), 50 Ind. App. 56; Jeffersonville School Tp. v. School City, etc. (1911), 50 Ind. App. 178, 182; Rose v. City of Jeffersonville (1916), 185 Ind. 577, 579 ; McClellan v. Thomas (1915), 183 Ind. 310 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hayes (1913), 181 Ind. 87, 107 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen (1913), 179 Ind. 142, 145 ; Huffman v. Thompson (1912), 177 Ind. 366, 368 ; Washington Hotel Realty Co. v. Bedford Stone, etc., Co. (1924), 195 Ind. 128, 143 N. E. 156 ; Gary, etc., R. Co. v. Hacker (1915), 58 Ind. App. 618, 620.
Judgment affirmed.