Farmers & Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Ammermon

Indiana Court of Appeals

Farmers & Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Ammermon

184 N.E. 419, 97 Ind. App. 39, 1933 Ind. App. LEXIS 47

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1933

DocketNo. 14,684.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 N.E. 419 (Farmers & Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Ammermon) 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

Farmers & Merchants Mutual Insurance v. Ammermon, 184 N.E. 419, 97 Ind. App. 39, 1933 Ind. App. LEXIS 47 (Ind. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Kime, P. J.

— This was an action brought by appellees against appellant to recover upon a certain fire insurance policy. From an adverse finding and judgment, appellant appeals, assigning as error the overruling of its motion for a new trial.

Appellees have directed our attention to the fact that appellant’s brief presents no question for the reason that same does not comply with Rule 22, Clause 5 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts.

A careful examination of the brief of appellant discloses that, under the heading of “Points, Propositions and Authorities,” the only matter set forth is that “The finding and decision of the court herein is not sustained by sufficient evidence,” and “The finding and decision of the court herein is contrary to law,” with seven cases being cited in support thereof. The mere statement that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law, without giving any specific reasons.therefor, is too indefinite to present *40 any question to this court for its consideration. Kimmick’s Estate v. Dixon (1931), 93 Ind. App. 8, 177 N. E. 340; Inland Steel Co. v. Smith (1907), 168 Ind. 245, 252, 80 N. E. 538; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lightheiser (1906), 168 Ind. 438, 78 N. E. 1033, and cases there cited; Gray v. McLaughlin (1921), 191 Ind. 190, 131 N. E. 518; Kaiser v. Wittekindt (1916), 62 Ind. App. 171, 112 N. E. 896; Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Coughlin (1917), 65 Ind. App. 268, 115 N. E. 260; Starz v. Kirsch (1922), 78 Ind. App. 431, 136 N. E. 36; Albaugh Brothers Dover & Co. v. Lynas (1910), 47 Ind. App. 30, 93 N. E. 678. “Mere general statements without specific and definite reasons specifically applied present no question under Rule 22, clause 5, of the rules of this court.” Kimmick’s Estate v. Dixon, supra.

This cause is therefore affirmed, and it is so ordered.

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

Kime, P. J.

— This was an action brought by appellees against appellant to recover upon a certain fire insurance policy. From an adverse finding and judgment, appellant appeals, assigning as error the overruling of its motion for a new trial.

Appellees have directed our attention to the fact that appellant’s brief presents no question for the reason that same does not comply with Rule 22, Clause 5 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts.

A careful examination of the brief of appellant discloses that, under the heading of “Points, Propositions and Authorities,” the only matter set forth is that “The finding and decision of the court herein is not sustained by sufficient evidence,” and “The finding and decision of the court herein is contrary to law,” with seven cases being cited in support thereof. The mere statement that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law, without giving any specific reasons.therefor, is too indefinite to present *40 any question to this court for its consideration. Kimmick’s Estate v. Dixon (1931), 93 Ind. App. 8, 177 N. E. 340; Inland Steel Co. v. Smith (1907), 168 Ind. 245, 252, 80 N. E. 538; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lightheiser (1906), 168 Ind. 438, 78 N. E. 1033, and cases there cited; Gray v. McLaughlin (1921), 191 Ind. 190, 131 N. E. 518; Kaiser v. Wittekindt (1916), 62 Ind. App. 171, 112 N. E. 896; Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Coughlin (1917), 65 Ind. App. 268, 115 N. E. 260; Starz v. Kirsch (1922), 78 Ind. App. 431, 136 N. E. 36; Albaugh Brothers Dover & Co. v. Lynas (1910), 47 Ind. App. 30, 93 N. E. 678. “Mere general statements without specific and definite reasons specifically applied present no question under Rule 22, clause 5, of the rules of this court.” Kimmick’s Estate v. Dixon, supra.

This cause is therefore affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.E. 419, 97 Ind. App. 39, 1933 Ind. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-merchants-mutual-insurance-v-ammermon-indctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack