Christie v. Slinginger

110 N.E. 61, 183 Ind. 658, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 115
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 2, 1915·No. No. 22,798·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Spencer, C. J.

— This action was to have a judgment can-celled and vacated as being fraudulent. The sole question assigned as error, is the overruling- of appellants’ demurrer for insufficient facts, to the appellee’s complaint.

There is no question presented; the appellants by their brief have wholly ignored Rule 22 of this court; it fails to set out the complaint or the substance thereof; it contains no statement of “Propositions or Points” and authorities [659]*659relied on. Such, disregard of rules precludes consideration of the question. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 110 N. E. 61. See, also, 3 C. J. 128T, 1300; 2 Oyc. 1014.

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

Christie v. Slinginger, 110 N.E. 61, 183 Ind. 658, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 115 (Ind. 1915).

110 N.E. 61 (Christie v. Slinginger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mesmer v. Egland
151 N.E. 826 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1926)
Shay v. Goins
119 N.E. 808 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1918)
Harvey v. French
110 N.E. 62 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1915)