Henderson v. Country Publishing Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Henderson v. Country Publishing Co.

107 N.E. 295, 57 Ind. App. 414, 1914 Ind. App. LEXIS 139

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 1914

DocketNo. 8,742

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 107 N.E. 295 (Henderson v. Country Publishing Co.) 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

Henderson v. Country Publishing Co., 107 N.E. 295, 57 Ind. App. 414, 1914 Ind. App. LEXIS 139 (Ind. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Lairy, J.

The errors assigned on this appeal are that the trial court erred in its conclusions of law upon the special finding of facts and in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial.

1. 2. The briefs present no question for review. Appellants have failed to set out in their brief the special finding of facts, and the substance thereof is not stated in such a manner as ivould enable this court, without reference to the transcript, to pass upon the the correctness of the conclusions of law based thereon. Under the rules of this court and numerous decisions the error, if any, is waived. Town of Jasper v. Cassidy (1913), 53 Ind. App. 678, 102 N. E. 278. The brief of appellants does not contain a copy of their motion for a new trial, or state the substance thereof, and no error predicated on the ruling on such motion is presented for review. Chaney v. Mullis (1913), 54 Ind. App. 233, 102 N. E. 872. It is the duty of appellant to point out error and the court will not search the record to reverse.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note.' — Reported in 107 N. E. 295. See, also, under (1) 2 Oye. 1014; (2) 3 Cyc. 275.

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

Lairy, J.

The errors assigned on this appeal are that the trial court erred in its conclusions of law upon the special finding of facts and in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial.

1. 2. The briefs present no question for review. Appellants have failed to set out in their brief the special finding of facts, and the substance thereof is not stated in such a manner as ivould enable this court, without reference to the transcript, to pass upon the the correctness of the conclusions of law based thereon. Under the rules of this court and numerous decisions the error, if any, is waived. Town of Jasper v. Cassidy (1913), 53 Ind. App. 678, 102 N. E. 278. The brief of appellants does not contain a copy of their motion for a new trial, or state the substance thereof, and no error predicated on the ruling on such motion is presented for review. Chaney v. Mullis (1913), 54 Ind. App. 233, 102 N. E. 872. It is the duty of appellant to point out error and the court will not search the record to reverse.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note.' — Reported in 107 N. E. 295. See, also, under (1) 2 Oye. 1014; (2) 3 Cyc. 275.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 N.E. 295, 57 Ind. App. 414, 1914 Ind. App. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-country-publishing-co-indctapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack