Chaney v. Mullis

Indiana Supreme Court

Chaney v. Mullis

102 N.E. 872, 54 Ind. App. 233, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 94

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1913·No. No. 7,891·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Lairy, J.

1. The only error assigned is, that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The brief of appellant does not set out a copy of this motion or state its substance, and there is no reference in the brief to the record indicating where such motion [234]*234may be found. It is the duty of appellant to point out error and tbe court will not search the record to reverse.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note.—Reported, in 102 N. E. 872. See, also, 2 Cyc. 1014; 3 Cyc. 419.

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

Lairy, J.

1. The only error assigned is, that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The brief of appellant does not set out a copy of this motion or state its substance, and there is no reference in the brief to the record indicating where such motion [234]*234may be found. It is the duty of appellant to point out error and tbe court will not search the record to reverse.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note.—Reported, in 102 N. E. 872. See, also, 2 Cyc. 1014; 3 Cyc. 419.

Chaney v. Mullis, 102 N.E. 872, 54 Ind. App. 233, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 94 (Ind. 1913).

Pincite

102 N.E. 872 (Chaney v. Mullis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related