City of Evansville v. Pifer

Indiana Court of Appeals

City of Evansville v. Pifer

101 N.E. 824, 53 Ind. App. 452, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 211

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1913

DocketNo. 8,000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 N.E. 824 (City of Evansville v. Pifer) 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

City of Evansville v. Pifer, 101 N.E. 824, 53 Ind. App. 452, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Shea, J.

— Appellee’s wife, Mollie Pifer, upon the same facts involved in this appeal, recovered judgment in the court below against appellants for personal injuries sustained by her, which judgment was affirmed in this court. See City of Evansville v. Pifer (1912), 51 Ind. App. 646, 100 N. E. 110.

1. It is insisted by appellee that the brief filed by appellants in this ease is defective in the following particulars: first, in the statement of the nature of the action. Appellant’s statement is as follows: “This action was brought by appellee to recover damages for loss of service, etc., of appellee’s wife, and is based upon the same alleged negligence of appellants, upon which the action of Mollie Pifer v. appellants [City of Evansville v. Pifer, supra] was predicated.” This is not a compliance with Rule 22 of this court.

Appellee next points out that appellants do not set out in [453]*453their brief a copy of the complaint nor of any of the pleadings, but only refer to the record where the same can be found; that appellants’ brief does not attempt to state in any manner what causes for a new trial were set out in the motion, and there is nothing in the brief disclosing any of the reasons assigned for a new trial in the motion therefor. Complaint is also made that the notice served upon appellant city, which the city insists is not sufficient, is not set out in appellants’ brief, either by copy or a statement of its contents, and therefore no question is presented as to the sufficiency of such notice. The brief is subject to many infirmities which we need not pass upon here. In the well-considered opinion in the case of City of Evansville v. Pifer, supra, the law applicable to the questions involved in this case, is clearly stated, and upon the authority of that decision, the judgment in this ease is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Note — Reported in 101 N. E. 824. See, also, 2 Cyc. 1013.

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

Shea, J.

— Appellee’s wife, Mollie Pifer, upon the same facts involved in this appeal, recovered judgment in the court below against appellants for personal injuries sustained by her, which judgment was affirmed in this court. See City of Evansville v. Pifer (1912), 51 Ind. App. 646, 100 N. E. 110.

1. It is insisted by appellee that the brief filed by appellants in this ease is defective in the following particulars: first, in the statement of the nature of the action. Appellant’s statement is as follows: “This action was brought by appellee to recover damages for loss of service, etc., of appellee’s wife, and is based upon the same alleged negligence of appellants, upon which the action of Mollie Pifer v. appellants [City of Evansville v. Pifer, supra] was predicated.” This is not a compliance with Rule 22 of this court.

Appellee next points out that appellants do not set out in [453]*453their brief a copy of the complaint nor of any of the pleadings, but only refer to the record where the same can be found; that appellants’ brief does not attempt to state in any manner what causes for a new trial were set out in the motion, and there is nothing in the brief disclosing any of the reasons assigned for a new trial in the motion therefor. Complaint is also made that the notice served upon appellant city, which the city insists is not sufficient, is not set out in appellants’ brief, either by copy or a statement of its contents, and therefore no question is presented as to the sufficiency of such notice. The brief is subject to many infirmities which we need not pass upon here. In the well-considered opinion in the case of City of Evansville v. Pifer, supra, the law applicable to the questions involved in this case, is clearly stated, and upon the authority of that decision, the judgment in this ease is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Note — Reported in 101 N. E. 824. See, also, 2 Cyc. 1013.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.E. 824, 53 Ind. App. 452, 1913 Ind. App. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-evansville-v-pifer-indctapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack