Case Name: Washbusky v. Peyton et al.
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1918-04-30
Citations: 67 Ind. App. 528
Docket Number: No. 10,180
Parties: Washbusky v. Peyton et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
Washbusky v. Peyton et al.
[No. 10,180.
Filed April 30, 1918.]
Appeal. — Dismissal.—Grounds.—Where the errors assigned on ap- ' peal require a consideration of the evidence, and the record shows that the bill of exceptions containing the evidence was not'filed within the time allowed for that purpose, and no extension was granted, the evidence is not in the record, and the appeal must be dismissed, since no question is presented for review.
From Clark Circuit Court; James W. Fortune, Judge.
Action between Israel Washbusky and David C. Peyton and others. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
H. Willard Phipps, Burdette G. Luts and Warren B. Allison, for appellant.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, and Stotsenburg & Weathers, for appellee.

Opinion:
Ibach, C. J.
Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the record presents no question for our decision. In support of such motion they show that the only errors assigned by appellant are: (1) That the court erred in sustaining appellee's motion for peremptory instruc tions; (2) that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial; that a consideration of said questions would depend upon a consideration of the evidence, and the record shows that the motion for a new trial was overruled on May 19, 1917; that sixty days' time was given on that day in which to file the bill of exceptions; that the bill of exceptions containing the evidence was not presented to the court for its approval until November 14,1917, and was not filed in said court until that date; that appellant was never granted any extension of time in which to file said bill of exceptions.
Upon an examination of the record we find these facts to be true. It follows that no question is presented, and the appeal must be dismissed. Huntingburg Bank v. Morgenroth (1916), 64 Ind. App. 315, 115 N. E. 798; Beard v. Fenton (1918), post 605, 119 N.E. 495.
Appeal dismissed.
Note. — Reported in 119 N. E. 477.