Galvin v. Brown

133 N.E. 504, 77 Ind. App. 370, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 17
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 12, 1922
DocketNo. 11,067
StatusPublished

This text of 133 N.E. 504 (Galvin v. Brown) 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
Galvin v. Brown, 133 N.E. 504, 77 Ind. App. 370, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 1922).

Opinion

Batman, P. J.

1. Appellant has assigned the action of the court in overruling his separate demurrer to each the first, second, and third paragraphs of appellee’s complaint as error, but his brief fails to disclose that he reserved any exception to such ruling. This omission is not supplied by appellee’s brief, and therefore under the settled rules governing the preparation of briefs, no question with reference to such ruling is presented for our determination as appears [371]*371from many decisions. Decker v. Mahoney (1917), 64 Ind. App. 500, 116 N. E. 57; W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hughes (1919), 70 Ind. App. 127, 121 N. E. 546; Morgan v. Arnt (1917), 63 Ind. App. 590, 114 N. E. 986; Chaney v. Wood (1916), 63 Ind. App. 687, 115 N. E. 333; Traylor v. McCormick (1916), 63 Ind. App. 695, 115 N. E. 346; American, etc., Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., Co. (1912), 178 Ind. 133, 98 N. E. 709; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Ader (1915), 184 Ind. 235, 110 N. E. 67; Robinson v. State (1916), 185 Ind. 119, 113 N. E. 306; Miller v. Ruse (1913), 54 Ind. App. 25, 101 N. E. 343; Newman v. Horner (1914), 55 Ind. App. 298, 103 N. E. 820; Vandalia Coal Co. v. Bland (1915), 59 Ind. App. 308, 108 N. E. 176.

2. The only other error assigned by appellant is based on the action of the court in overruling his motion for a new trial, but his brief fails to disclose that he reserved an exception to such ruling. However, appellee has copied into his brief that portion of the record in which such ruling appears, and an exception thereto by appellant is thereby shown. This serves to supply the omission in that regard in appellant’s brief.

3. The record discloses that appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled on September 15, 1920, and sixty days were given in which to file a bill of exeeptions. Afterwards, on November 16, 1920, the bill of exceptions, bound with the record and purporting to contain the evidence, was filed. This was not within the time given, and the evidence, therefore, is not in the record. This being true, there is nothing for our determination under said alleged error, as the only question which appellant has attempted to present thereby requires a consideration of the evidence. No question being presented on appeal, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

American Fidelity Co. v. Indianapolis Mortar & Fuel Co.
98 N.E. 709 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1912)
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. Ader
110 N.E. 67 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1915)
Robinson v. State
113 N.E. 306 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1916)
Miller v. Ruse
101 N.E. 343 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1913)
Newman v. Horner
103 N.E. 820 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1914)
Vandalia Coal Co. v. Bland
108 N.E. 176 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Morgan v. Arnt
114 N.E. 986 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Chaney v. Wood
115 N.E. 333 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Traylor v. McCormick
115 N.E. 346 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Decker v. Mahoney
116 N.E. 57 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Hughes
121 N.E. 546 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
133 N.E. 504, 77 Ind. App. 370, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galvin-v-brown-indctapp-1922.