Court Opinion

ID: 9712030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:44:56.062058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:09.335117
License: Public Domain

*248ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Coopee, J.
This matter comes before us on the appellants’ petition for rehearing wherein the appellants claim we were in error when we stated the appellants’ brief does not undertake to set out the motion for a new trial, either in text or in substance, and, under these circumstances, the brief is insufficient to present any questions upon the merits under our Supreme Court Rule 2-17, and that the appellants’ brief is insufficient to present any question upon the merits.
The appellants in their petition for rehearing maintain that their motion for a new trial was set forth on page four of the appellants’ brief, and also on page 59 of the transcript.
First, the mere fact that we find the appellants’ motion for a new trial in the transcript of record is not sufficient to present anything to this court under Rule 2-17, which applies to appellants’ briefs. Secondly, in reviewing the appellants’ brief wherein they stated they set forth their motion for a new trial on page 4, a review of their brief reveals that that is the appellants’ assignment of error. Furthermore, the appellants’ concise statement of the record in their brief does not set forth the appellants’ complaint or any of the other pleadings, or the substance thereof, filed in the case, the trial court’s judgment, the motion for a new trial, the trial court’s ruling on the motion for a new trial, the appellants’ praecipe for a transcript filed with the Clerk or that the appellants filed their bill of exceptions with the trial court, all of which should be included in a concise statement of the record under Rule 2-17. As a matter of fact, the appellants’ concise statement of the record contains only a concise statement of the appellees’ evidence in chief, and that is not sufficient under Rule 2-17.
*249For many authorities upon what we have heretofore stated, see §§2676 and 2677, 1959 Supplement, Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton’s Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Note. — Reported in 161 N. E. 2d 485. Rehearing denied 163 N. E. 2d 619.