Court Opinion

ID: 3427248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 19:55:37.339848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:58.461633
License: Public Domain

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 *Page 325 
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; WashingtonHotel 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.