Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum

Indiana Court of Appeals

Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum

151 N.E. 436, 85 Ind. App. 168, 1926 Ind. App. LEXIS 113

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 22, 1926

DocketNo. 12,481.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 151 N.E. 436 (Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum) 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

Dinsmore v. Kreighbaum, 151 N.E. 436, 85 Ind. App. 168, 1926 Ind. App. LEXIS 113 (Ind. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, C. J.

Action for seduction by appellant against appellee. There was a trial by jury and a verdict against appellant, on which judgment was rendered, from which this appeal. The error assigned is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, under which appellant presents that there was error in giving instruction No. 9 tendered by appellee. This instruction calls special attention to appellant as a witness, and to parts of her evidence.in such a way as that she may have been discredited and prejudiced thereby. Appellant has fully briefed the question *169 and makes, in the opinion of this court, a prima facie showing that reversible error was committed. Appellee has failed to file any brief and the court, in its discretion, will treat such failure to file a brief, thereby attempting to aid the court in learning whether or not reversible error in fact was committed, as a confession of error. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Linder (1925), 195 Ind. 569, 145 N. E. 885; Goldberg v. Hauer (1924), 81 Ind. App. 23, 142 N. E. 125.

Judgment reversed.

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

Nichols, C. J.

Action for seduction by appellant against appellee. There was a trial by jury and a verdict against appellant, on which judgment was rendered, from which this appeal. The error assigned is the action of the court in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, under which appellant presents that there was error in giving instruction No. 9 tendered by appellee. This instruction calls special attention to appellant as a witness, and to parts of her evidence.in such a way as that she may have been discredited and prejudiced thereby. Appellant has fully briefed the question *169 and makes, in the opinion of this court, a prima facie showing that reversible error was committed. Appellee has failed to file any brief and the court, in its discretion, will treat such failure to file a brief, thereby attempting to aid the court in learning whether or not reversible error in fact was committed, as a confession of error. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Linder (1925), 195 Ind. 569, 145 N. E. 885; Goldberg v. Hauer (1924), 81 Ind. App. 23, 142 N. E. 125.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 N.E. 436, 85 Ind. App. 168, 1926 Ind. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinsmore-v-kreighbaum-indctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack