Newman v. Newman

Indiana Court of Appeals

Newman v. Newman

58 N.E. 560, 26 Ind. App. 238, 1900 Ind. App. LEXIS 32

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 1900

DocketNo. 3,274

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 N.E. 560 (Newman v. Newman) 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

Newman v. Newman, 58 N.E. 560, 26 Ind. App. 238, 1900 Ind. App. LEXIS 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Henley, J.

Appellee brought this action against appellant for damages resulting from the alleged alienation of the affections of appellee’s husband by appellant. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $1,500.

[239]*239Appellant has assigned as error (1) the overruling of her motion for a new trial; (2) that the amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The error, if any, presented by the second specification of the assignment of errors is waived on account of the failure to discuss it. Under the first specification counsel for appellant have favored us with an able argument upon the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, but in the preparation of the voluminous bill of exceptions containing the evidence counsel have failed to comply with rule thirty of this court. The marginal notes required by this rule are not to be found. It is not only the right but the duty of the court to enforce this rule. Smith v. State, 140 Ind. 340; Harrod v. State, 24 Ind. App. 159; Otis v. Weiss, 22 Ind. App. 161; Babcock v. Johnson, 22 Ind. App. 97; Citizens St. R. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 19 Ind. App. 402.

On account of the failure to comply with rule thirty of this court, the questions presented depending upon the bill of exceptions will not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Henley, J.

Appellee brought this action against appellant for damages resulting from the alleged alienation of the affections of appellee’s husband by appellant. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $1,500.

[239]*239Appellant has assigned as error (1) the overruling of her motion for a new trial; (2) that the amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The error, if any, presented by the second specification of the assignment of errors is waived on account of the failure to discuss it. Under the first specification counsel for appellant have favored us with an able argument upon the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, but in the preparation of the voluminous bill of exceptions containing the evidence counsel have failed to comply with rule thirty of this court. The marginal notes required by this rule are not to be found. It is not only the right but the duty of the court to enforce this rule. Smith v. State, 140 Ind. 340; Harrod v. State, 24 Ind. App. 159; Otis v. Weiss, 22 Ind. App. 161; Babcock v. Johnson, 22 Ind. App. 97; Citizens St. R. Co. v. Union Trust Co., 19 Ind. App. 402.

On account of the failure to comply with rule thirty of this court, the questions presented depending upon the bill of exceptions will not be considered.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.E. 560, 26 Ind. App. 238, 1900 Ind. App. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-newman-indctapp-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack