Joseph v. Horodesky

Indiana Court of Appeals

Joseph v. Horodesky

112 N.E. 529, 62 Ind. App. 1, 1916 Ind. App. LEXIS 85

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 10, 1916

DocketNo. 9,027

StatusPublished

This text of 112 N.E. 529 (Joseph v. Horodesky) 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

Joseph v. Horodesky, 112 N.E. 529, 62 Ind. App. 1, 1916 Ind. App. LEXIS 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Ibach, C. J.

Under Rule 22 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts, the briefs in this case present no question to this court for determination. Appellants’ brief contains no statement whatever of the errors assigned or relied on for reversal, no statement of the record showing any error or exception relied on, and no statement of the issues or decision. It contains merely what is called a statement of facts consisting of counsel’s deductions from the evidence, followed by quotations from certain [2]*2authorities ou abstract questions of law,- but which are not applied, to any specific action of the court. There follows a discussion of some relative rights of appellee and appellant, but nowhere in the brief is mention made of any specific action of the court, or of any specific error. It is impossible for the court from a consideration of the brief of appellant, together with appellee’s brief, to find out what was done in the court below, and to ascertain and know with any certainty the question or questions attempted to be presented by this appeal, without resort to the record, and therefore no question is presented for decision. Repp v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1915), — Ind. App. — , 109 N. E. 441; Vandalia Coal Co. v. Bland (1915), 59 Ind. App. 308, 108 N. E. 176; Gary, etc., R. Co. v. Hacker (1915), 58 Ind. App. 618, 108 N. E. 756; Johnson v. Bebout (1915), 59 Ind. App. 159, 108 N. E. 967; Roark v. Voshell (1915), 58 Ind. App. 203, 108 N. E. 18. Judgment affirmed.

Note.- — Reported in 112 N. E. 529.

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

Ibach, C. J.

Under Rule 22 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts, the briefs in this case present no question to this court for determination. Appellants’ brief contains no statement whatever of the errors assigned or relied on for reversal, no statement of the record showing any error or exception relied on, and no statement of the issues or decision. It contains merely what is called a statement of facts consisting of counsel’s deductions from the evidence, followed by quotations from certain [2]*2authorities ou abstract questions of law,- but which are not applied, to any specific action of the court. There follows a discussion of some relative rights of appellee and appellant, but nowhere in the brief is mention made of any specific action of the court, or of any specific error. It is impossible for the court from a consideration of the brief of appellant, together with appellee’s brief, to find out what was done in the court below, and to ascertain and know with any certainty the question or questions attempted to be presented by this appeal, without resort to the record, and therefore no question is presented for decision. Repp v. Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. (1915), — Ind. App. — , 109 N. E. 441; Vandalia Coal Co. v. Bland (1915), 59 Ind. App. 308, 108 N. E. 176; Gary, etc., R. Co. v. Hacker (1915), 58 Ind. App. 618, 108 N. E. 756; Johnson v. Bebout (1915), 59 Ind. App. 159, 108 N. E. 967; Roark v. Voshell (1915), 58 Ind. App. 203, 108 N. E. 18. Judgment affirmed.

Note.- — Reported in 112 N. E. 529.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.E. 529, 62 Ind. App. 1, 1916 Ind. App. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-v-horodesky-indctapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack