McClellan v. Thomas

Indiana Supreme Court

McClellan v. Thomas

109 N.E. 44, 183 Ind. 310, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 61

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 3, 1915

DocketNo. 22,806

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 109 N.E. 44 (McClellan v. Thomas) 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

McClellan v. Thomas, 109 N.E. 44, 183 Ind. 310, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 61 (Ind. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Cox, J.

— This appeal is from a judgment of the trial court awarding appellee Thomas a way of necessity over the lands of appellants.

The questions which appellants attempt to present arise on the assertion that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence in fact or law. Counsel for appellees challenge the sufficiency of appellants’ brief to comply with the rules of this court in many particulars and in no way waive its defects. Without giving consideration to all of the objections to appellants’ brief, it is sufficient to say that one of them requires that the judgment be affirmed. Clause 5, Rule 22, provides that, if the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding in fact or law is assigned, the statement of the record required shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form so as to present the substance clearly and concisely. Appellants’ brief signally fails to comply with this rule. In the main the statement in question is but the conclusion of counsel as to facts assumed to have been established by the evidence. This is not sufficient. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen (1913), 179 Ind. 142, 145, 100 N. E. 465, and cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

■ Note. — Reported in 109 N. E. 44. See, also, 2 Cyc. 1915 Anno. 1013-36; 2 Cyc. 1015,

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

Cox, J.

— This appeal is from a judgment of the trial court awarding appellee Thomas a way of necessity over the lands of appellants.

The questions which appellants attempt to present arise on the assertion that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence in fact or law. Counsel for appellees challenge the sufficiency of appellants’ brief to comply with the rules of this court in many particulars and in no way waive its defects. Without giving consideration to all of the objections to appellants’ brief, it is sufficient to say that one of them requires that the judgment be affirmed. Clause 5, Rule 22, provides that, if the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding in fact or law is assigned, the statement of the record required shall contain a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form so as to present the substance clearly and concisely. Appellants’ brief signally fails to comply with this rule. In the main the statement in question is but the conclusion of counsel as to facts assumed to have been established by the evidence. This is not sufficient. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen (1913), 179 Ind. 142, 145, 100 N. E. 465, and cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

■ Note. — Reported in 109 N. E. 44. See, also, 2 Cyc. 1915 Anno. 1013-36; 2 Cyc. 1015,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.E. 44, 183 Ind. 310, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclellan-v-thomas-ind-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack