Goldberg v. Hauer

Indiana Court of Appeals

Goldberg v. Hauer

142 N.E. 125, 81 Ind. App. 23, 1924 Ind. App. LEXIS 27

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 1924

DocketNo. 11,610

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 142 N.E. 125 (Goldberg v. Hauer) 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

Goldberg v. Hauer, 142 N.E. 125, 81 Ind. App. 23, 1924 Ind. App. LEXIS 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Batman, J.

This is an action by appellee against appellant, based on an alleged breach of a written contract, in which á judgment was rendered against the latter for the sum of $800. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging among' the reasons therefor, that the assessment of the amount of recovery is erroneous, being too large. The action of the court in overruling this motion is assigned as error on appeal. We [24]*24have carefully considered appellant’s brief, and have reached the conclusion that it discloses prima facie, that the court erred in overruling said motion for the reason stated above. Appellee has not filed a brief in ' support of the judgment, and, therefore, under the circumstances stated,- such failure will be taken as a confession of error, justifying a reversal, without considering other reasons on which such motion is based. Union Traction Co. v. Wolf (1920), 78 Ind. App. 392, 127 N. E. 564; Glencoe Cotton Mills v. Capitol Paper Co. (1920), 74 Ind. App. 289, 128 N. E. 699; Roberts v. Fesler (1920), 74 Ind. App. 333, 128 N. E. 359; Robertson v. Ewing (1922), 78 Ind. App. 307, 135 N. E. 491. Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Nichols, J., not participating.

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

Batman, J.

This is an action by appellee against appellant, based on an alleged breach of a written contract, in which á judgment was rendered against the latter for the sum of $800. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging among' the reasons therefor, that the assessment of the amount of recovery is erroneous, being too large. The action of the court in overruling this motion is assigned as error on appeal. We [24]*24have carefully considered appellant’s brief, and have reached the conclusion that it discloses prima facie, that the court erred in overruling said motion for the reason stated above. Appellee has not filed a brief in ' support of the judgment, and, therefore, under the circumstances stated,- such failure will be taken as a confession of error, justifying a reversal, without considering other reasons on which such motion is based. Union Traction Co. v. Wolf (1920), 78 Ind. App. 392, 127 N. E. 564; Glencoe Cotton Mills v. Capitol Paper Co. (1920), 74 Ind. App. 289, 128 N. E. 699; Roberts v. Fesler (1920), 74 Ind. App. 333, 128 N. E. 359; Robertson v. Ewing (1922), 78 Ind. App. 307, 135 N. E. 491. Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Nichols, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 N.E. 125, 81 Ind. App. 23, 1924 Ind. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberg-v-hauer-indctapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack