Melvin v. Hamilton, Admr.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Melvin v. Hamilton, Admr.

199 N.E. 602, 101 Ind. App. 456, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 26

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 6, 1936

DocketNo. 15,194.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 199 N.E. 602 (Melvin v. Hamilton, Admr.) 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

Melvin v. Hamilton, Admr., 199 N.E. 602, 101 Ind. App. 456, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court. The sole error assigned for reversal is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial. The appellants have failed to set out a copy of their motion for a new trial or the substance thereof in their brief. The brief also fails to show that any time was given in which to file a bill of exceptions containing the evidence and proceedings of the trial court or that any bill of exceptions approved by such court was ever filed and made a part of the record. Thus no question is presented for our consideration. State ex rel. v. Hinds (1929), 200 Ind. 613, 165 N. E. 754; United Paperboard Co. v. Muncie, etc., Co. (1926), 84 Ind. App. 333, 151 N. E. 365; Indiana Service Corporation v. Daily (1928), 87 Ind. App. 6, 159 N. E. 767; Rule 21, Supreme and Appellate Courts.

The death of appellee having been suggested the judgment is affirmed as of date of submission.

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

Wood, J.

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court. The sole error assigned for reversal is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial. The appellants have failed to set out a copy of their motion for a new trial or the substance thereof in their brief. The brief also fails to show that any time was given in which to file a bill of exceptions containing the evidence and proceedings of the trial court or that any bill of exceptions approved by such court was ever filed and made a part of the record. Thus no question is presented for our consideration. State ex rel. v. Hinds (1929), 200 Ind. 613, 165 N. E. 754; United Paperboard Co. v. Muncie, etc., Co. (1926), 84 Ind. App. 333, 151 N. E. 365; Indiana Service Corporation v. Daily (1928), 87 Ind. App. 6, 159 N. E. 767; Rule 21, Supreme and Appellate Courts.

The death of appellee having been suggested the judgment is affirmed as of date of submission.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 N.E. 602, 101 Ind. App. 456, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-v-hamilton-admr-indctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack