Bullington v. Garrett

Indiana Court of Appeals

Bullington v. Garrett

178 N.E. 186, 93 Ind. App. 272, 1931 Ind. App. LEXIS 121

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 29, 1931

DocketNo. 14,117.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 178 N.E. 186 (Bullington v. Garrett) 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

Bullington v. Garrett, 178 N.E. 186, 93 Ind. App. 272, 1931 Ind. App. LEXIS 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Lockyear, J.

The appellee herein filed first and second paragraphs of second amended complaint to collect commissions for the sale of certain real estate in the State of Indiana. The appellant filed a demurrer to the said first and second paragraphs of amended complaint upon the grounds that neither paragraph stated sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, for the reason that the complaint is founded on a written instrument and that neither the original nor the copy thereof is filed with the said first and second paragraphs of said amended complaint. The court overruled said demurrer, to which ruling the appellant duly excepted and assigns the ruling of the court as error herein. A judgment was rendered for the appellee in the sum of $210. The appellee has filed no brief.

It has béen held that, where no copy of an instrument declared on appears in the record, the averment that a copy is filed will not make the pleading good, as against the demurrer. Olde v. Mohler (1890), 122 Ind. 594, 23 N. E. 967. The complaint in this action alleged that a copy of the contract sued on is made a part of the complaint and marked “Exhibit B,” but no copy of the contract was incorporated in the complaint nor attached thereto as an exhibit.

It has been held in the case of Berkshire v. Caley (1901), 157 Ind. 1, 60 N. E. 696, that, where an appellee fails to prepare and file, within the time allowed, a brief or argument in support of the judgment assailed, such failure or default on his part may

be accepted as and deemed to be a confession of the errors assigned by the appellant, and this court, in the *274 exercise of its discretion, may reverse the judgment without considering the appeal on its merits, provided the appellant has made a prima facie showing of reversable error.

We have, however, considered the merits of this appeal, and the judgment herein is reversed, with instructions to sustain the appellant’s demurrer to each of the first and second paragraphs of the second amended complaint.

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

Lockyear, J.

The appellee herein filed first and second paragraphs of second amended complaint to collect commissions for the sale of certain real estate in the State of Indiana. The appellant filed a demurrer to the said first and second paragraphs of amended complaint upon the grounds that neither paragraph stated sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, for the reason that the complaint is founded on a written instrument and that neither the original nor the copy thereof is filed with the said first and second paragraphs of said amended complaint. The court overruled said demurrer, to which ruling the appellant duly excepted and assigns the ruling of the court as error herein. A judgment was rendered for the appellee in the sum of $210. The appellee has filed no brief.

It has béen held that, where no copy of an instrument declared on appears in the record, the averment that a copy is filed will not make the pleading good, as against the demurrer. Olde v. Mohler (1890), 122 Ind. 594, 23 N. E. 967. The complaint in this action alleged that a copy of the contract sued on is made a part of the complaint and marked “Exhibit B,” but no copy of the contract was incorporated in the complaint nor attached thereto as an exhibit.

It has been held in the case of Berkshire v. Caley (1901), 157 Ind. 1, 60 N. E. 696, that, where an appellee fails to prepare and file, within the time allowed, a brief or argument in support of the judgment assailed, such failure or default on his part may

be accepted as and deemed to be a confession of the errors assigned by the appellant, and this court, in the *274 exercise of its discretion, may reverse the judgment without considering the appeal on its merits, provided the appellant has made a prima facie showing of reversable error.

We have, however, considered the merits of this appeal, and the judgment herein is reversed, with instructions to sustain the appellant’s demurrer to each of the first and second paragraphs of the second amended complaint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.E. 186, 93 Ind. App. 272, 1931 Ind. App. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullington-v-garrett-indctapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack