Case Name: Clevenger v. Clevenger et al.
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1915-05-13
Citations: 59 Ind. App. 13
Docket Number: No. 8,617
Parties: Clevenger v. Clevenger et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
Clevenger v. Clevenger et al.
[No. 8,617.
Filed May 13, 1915.]
,Appeal. — Questions Reviewable. — Ruling on Demurrers. — No question is presented on the overruling of demurrers to certain paragraphs of a'nswer, where neither appellant’s brief nor the record discloses that a memorandum of defects was filed with such demurrers, as required by §344 Burns 1914, Acts 1911 p. 415.
From Delaware Circuit Court; Frank Ellis, Judge.
Action by Merrell W. Clevenger against Naomi C. Clevenger and others. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Affimed.
William, A. Thompson and Bichará W. Sprague, for appellant.
Joseph G. Leffler, Walter L. Ball and A. E. Needham, for appellees.

Opinion:
Felt, J.
On May 22, 1911, appellant filed, in the court below, his complaint in one paragraph to quiet title to certain real estate. To this complaint appellees, David Cooper, Sarah E. Cooper and Naomi C. Clevenger, filed a general denial and a second paragraph of affirmative answer. The Coopers also filed a separate second paragraph of affirmative answer. Other pleadings were filed but we need not indicate them here. To each of the above second paragraphs of answer, appellant demurred for want of facts to constitute a defense to his complaint. Each of said demurrers was over-, ruled, and appellant refusing to plead further, appellees withdrew their names in general denial and the court rendered judgment on the pleadings.
The only errors assigned seek to question the ruling on each of said demurrers. The demurrers are set out iu appellant's brief, but neither in the record, nor m the brief, is there any memorandum as required, by the act of 1911. Acts 1911 p. 415, §344 Burns 1914. No question is therefore presented. Quality Clothes Shop v. Keeney (1915), 57 Ind. App. 500, 106 N. E. 541; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. (1915), 183 Ind. 355, 108 N. E. 525; Stiles v. Hasler (1914), 56 Ind. App. 88, 104 N. E. 878. Judgment affirmed.
Note — Reported in 108 N. E. 808. See, alsb, 2 Cyc. 1014; 8 Cyc. 158.