Advisory Board v. State ex rel. Martin

Indiana Supreme Court

Advisory Board v. State ex rel. Martin

123 N.E. 108, 188 Ind. 331, 1919 Ind. LEXIS 48

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 1919

DocketNo. 23,472

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 N.E. 108 (Advisory Board v. State ex rel. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Advisory Board v. State ex rel. Martin, 123 N.E. 108, 188 Ind. 331, 1919 Ind. LEXIS 48 (Ind. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

[332]*3321. 2. [331]*331— Appellee obtained a judgment of mandate against appellant. The complaint was in four paragraphs. . The trial court sustained demurrer to all, [332]*332except the third. The cause was tried by jury on issue formed by answer to the third paragraph. Appellant says in its brief that it relies for reversal of the cause upon error of the court in overruling the demurrer to the third paragraph of the complaint. Appellant’s brief does not set out this paragraph of complaint; does not set out the demurrer thereto; does not set out memorandum attached to the demurrer; does not give any statement of the record by which this court can tell what its contentions are. Sub-division 5, Rule 22. §3, chapter 143, Acts 1917 p. 523, is void so far as briefing is concerned. Solimeto v. State (1919), ante 170, 122 N. E. 578.

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 123 N. E. 108.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Townsend, J.

[332]*3321. 2. [331]*331— Appellee obtained a judgment of mandate against appellant. The complaint was in four paragraphs. . The trial court sustained demurrer to all, [332]*332except the third. The cause was tried by jury on issue formed by answer to the third paragraph. Appellant says in its brief that it relies for reversal of the cause upon error of the court in overruling the demurrer to the third paragraph of the complaint. Appellant’s brief does not set out this paragraph of complaint; does not set out the demurrer thereto; does not set out memorandum attached to the demurrer; does not give any statement of the record by which this court can tell what its contentions are. Sub-division 5, Rule 22. §3, chapter 143, Acts 1917 p. 523, is void so far as briefing is concerned. Solimeto v. State (1919), ante 170, 122 N. E. 578.

Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 123 N. E. 108.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.E. 108, 188 Ind. 331, 1919 Ind. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/advisory-board-v-state-ex-rel-martin-ind-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack