Harvey v. French

110 N.E. 62, 183 Ind. 665, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 119
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 4, 1915·No. No. 22,799·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Spencer, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment quieting in appellees the title to certain real estate. The only error relied on for reversal is “that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial”. Neither the motion for a new trial nor the substance thereof is anywhere brought to the attention of this court in appellants’ brief and in the propositions and authorities contained in said brief no reference, either special or general, is made [666]*666to the claimed error in overruling said motion. No question, therefore, is properly presented for our consideration. Christie v. Slinginger (1915), ante 658, 110 N. E. 61.

Appellants’ brief was filed by their then attorney of record on October 3, 1913, and in appellees’ brief, filed on December 12, 1913, attention was called to appellants’ failure to comply with the rules of this court. On January 22, 1914, other counsel appeared for appellants and filed pleadings in this court. On October 25, 1915, they filed an additional brief for appellants, but in none of said proceedings is an effort made to comply fully with Rule 22, and no question, therefore, is presented for consideration. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported, in 110 N. E. 62. See, also, 3 C. J. 1409, 1415 ; 2 Cye. 1013, 1014.

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

Harvey v. French, 110 N.E. 62, 183 Ind. 665, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 119 (Ind. 1915).

110 N.E. 62 (Harvey v. French) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chastain v. Board of Commissioners
119 N.E. 1007 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1918)
Farmers' Mutual Telephone Co. v. Duncan
116 N.E. 420 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1917)
Thomas v. Davis
115 N.E. 961 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Inland Steel Co. v. King
110 N.E. 62 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1915)