Ledbetter v. Coggeshall

Indiana Court of Appeals

Ledbetter v. Coggeshall

76 N.E. 787, 37 Ind. App. 124, 1906 Ind. App. LEXIS 21

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 1906

DocketNo. 5,677

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 N.E. 787 (Ledbetter v. Coggeshall) 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

Ledbetter v. Coggeshall, 76 N.E. 787, 37 Ind. App. 124, 1906 Ind. App. LEXIS 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Blaok, P. J.

The only supposed error assigned is the action of the court in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

The appellee has directed attention to the appellant’s failure to comply with the requirement of rule twenty-two of this court, that the appellant’s brief shall contain a concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents the error relied on, in that the brief does not show the contents or the substance of the complaint to which the demurrer was addressed, the brief merely referring to the place in the transcript where, it is said, the complaint is set forth. This is not a sufficient compliance with the rule. Schreiber v. Worm (1904), 164 Ind. 1; Tuthill Spring Co. v. Holliday (1904), 164 Ind. 13; Perry, etc., Stone Co. v. Wilson (1903), 160 Ind. 435.

The appellant’s brief being insufficient to require our consideration of any assignment of error, the appeal should not be entertained.

Appeal dismissed.

Robinson, J.

This appeal must be dismissed, unless there is a modification of rule twenty-two, but I believe that rule should be modified.

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

Blaok, P. J.

The only supposed error assigned is the action of the court in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

The appellee has directed attention to the appellant’s failure to comply with the requirement of rule twenty-two of this court, that the appellant’s brief shall contain a concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents the error relied on, in that the brief does not show the contents or the substance of the complaint to which the demurrer was addressed, the brief merely referring to the place in the transcript where, it is said, the complaint is set forth. This is not a sufficient compliance with the rule. Schreiber v. Worm (1904), 164 Ind. 1; Tuthill Spring Co. v. Holliday (1904), 164 Ind. 13; Perry, etc., Stone Co. v. Wilson (1903), 160 Ind. 435.

The appellant’s brief being insufficient to require our consideration of any assignment of error, the appeal should not be entertained.

Appeal dismissed.

Robinson, J.

This appeal must be dismissed, unless there is a modification of rule twenty-two, but I believe that rule should be modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.E. 787, 37 Ind. App. 124, 1906 Ind. App. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ledbetter-v-coggeshall-indctapp-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack