Branson v. Branson

193 N.E. 686, 100 Ind. App. 81, 1935 Ind. App. LEXIS 4
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 23, 1935
DocketNo. 14,725.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 193 N.E. 686 (Branson v. Branson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Branson v. Branson, 193 N.E. 686, 100 Ind. App. 81, 1935 Ind. App. LEXIS 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

Wood, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding the appellee a decree of divorce from appellant. Appellant has failed to set out in her brief, the assignment of errors on which she relies for reversal of this cause, or the lines and pages of the transcript where it may be found. She does say that she relies upon the error of the court in overruling her motion for a new trial for reversal, and that the only causes alleged for a new trial are that the decision of the court was contrary to law, and was not sustained by sufficient evidence. She does not set out a copy of her motion for a new trial, or the lines and pages of the transcript where it can be found. The brief fails to show that the appellant saved any exception to the overruling of her motion for a new trial, nor does it refer us to the lines and page of the transcript where such exception, if there was one taken, can be found.

In order to present to this court for its consideration the causes alleged for a new trial it would be necessary *82 to include in the transcript a bill of exceptions containing the evidence. Appellant’s brief fails to show that a bill of exceptions containing the evidence was ever prepared, made a part of the record and incorporated in the transcript on appeal to this court as required by our code of civil procedure.

The appellee has not supplied these omissions. It follows without further comment, that, because of appellant’s failure to comply with the rules of this court in the preparation of her brief, no questions are presented by this appeal for our consideration. Roark v. Voshell (1915), 58 Ind. App. 203, 108 N. E. 18; Lieberman v . DeWitt & Co. (1919), 71 Ind. App. 326, 124 N. E. 875; Moriarity v. Hickam, (1920), 73 Ind. App. 329, 127 N. E. 459.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Kerski v. St. John's Hickey Memorial Hospital
212 N.E.2d 782 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1966)
Hayes v. Pennick
204 N.E.2d 882 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1965)
Livingston, Admr. v. Livingston, Trustee
178 N.E.2d 466 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1961)
Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. Bowman
238 Ind. 532 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1958)
BOARD OF MED. REGIST. AND EXAM., ETC. v. Bowman
150 N.E.2d 883 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1958)
Smith v. Gowan-Stobo's Estate
41 N.E.2d 630 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1942)
Berning v. Scheuman
40 N.E.2d 1005 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1942)
General Ice Coal Co. v. George, Tr.
14 N.E.2d 1002 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
193 N.E. 686, 100 Ind. App. 81, 1935 Ind. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branson-v-branson-indctapp-1935.