Houck v. McCoy

114 N.E. 437, 185 Ind. 713, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 94
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 22, 1916
DocketNo. 22,758
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 114 N.E. 437 (Houck v. McCoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Houck v. McCoy, 114 N.E. 437, 185 Ind. 713, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 94 (Ind. 1916).

Opinion

Spencer, J.

— This action was instituted by appellee John R. McCoy, as trustee of the estate of Elmer G. Devin, to secure a construction of the last will and testament of Nancy Devin, deceased, as to certain bequests therein made. The facts in issue were found specially by the trial court, and its conclusions of law, stated thereon, serve as a basis for the judgment from which this appeal is taken.

In support of their contention that said judgment should be reversed, appellants have assigned and rely on nine separate allegations of error in the proceedings below. One of these assignments challenges the action of the circuit court in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial, which motion contains seventeen grounds. Under the heading of “Points and Authorities” appellants’ principal brief sets out twenty separately numbered propositions of law, which are stated in abstract form and with no attempt to apply them to any of the several assignments of error. This failure to comply with Rule 22 of this court is pointed out and relied on by appellees in their answer brief, but appellants have made no effort to amend their original statement of points and authorities, and in their reply brief they make no contention that there was agood-faitheffort to comply with the above rule. Since no question is properly presented for our consideration (Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Ritchey (1916), 185 Ind. 28, 111 N. E. 913), the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed, and we need not pass on appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in. 114 N. E. 437.

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

Related

Smith v. State
144 N.E. 141 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1924)
Leedy v. Idle
121 N.E. 323 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1918)
Rusk v. Kokomo Steel & Wire Co.
121 N.E. 87 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 N.E. 437, 185 Ind. 713, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houck-v-mccoy-ind-1916.