Newton D/B/a, Etc. v. Hunt D/B/a, Etc.

142 N.E.2d 643, 127 Ind. App. 456, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 151
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 28, 1957
Docket18,951
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 142 N.E.2d 643 (Newton D/B/a, Etc. v. Hunt D/B/a, Etc.) 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
Newton D/B/a, Etc. v. Hunt D/B/a, Etc., 142 N.E.2d 643, 127 Ind. App. 456, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1957).

Opinion

Cooper, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a complaint on account.

The appellee has not filed a brief in support of the judgment of the trial court. Both the Supreme Court of Indiana and our court have adopted a rule that the failure of an appellee to file a brief controverting the errors by the appellant, where the appellant’s brief makes a prima facie showing of reversible error, may be taken as a confession of such errors. In such cases, the judgment may accordingly be reversed and the cause remanded without prejudice to either pa,rty. This rule is not to be invoked nor has it been established for the benefit of the appellant, but for the protection of the court, and it has been repeatedly held that whether it is invoked is discretionary with the court. Luns *457 ford v. Maida (1957) 127 Ind. App. 236, 140 N. E. 2d 762; Associates Investment Co. v. Snyder (1949) 119 Ind. App. 20, 83 N. E. 2d 622; Miller v. Julian (1904) 163 Ind. 582, 72 N. E. 588; Meadows v. Hickman (1947), 225 Ind. 146, 73 N. E. 2d 343; Huffman v. Huffman (1947), 117 Ind. App. 601, 75 N. E. 2d 172; Whallon V. Wood (1948), 188 Ind. App. 163, 77 N. E. 2d 913; Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. Linder (1925), 195 Ind. 569, 145 N. E. 885; Bryant v. School Town of Oakland City (1930), 202 Ind. 254, 171 N. E. 378; 173 N. E. 268; Reed, Admr., v. Brown (1939) 215 Ind. 417, 19 N. E. 2d 1015.

The appellant herein in support of its appeal from the judgment has filed a brief which, in our opinion, makes a prima facie showing of reversible error.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Note. — Reported in 142 N. E. 2d 643.

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

Related

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals v. Schabler
239 N.E.2d 599 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1968)
Kuykendall v. County Commissioners
234 N.E.2d 860 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1968)
Harrington v. Hartman
233 N.E.2d 189 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1967)
Sanderson v. Harshman
191 N.E.2d 528 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1963)
Board of Zoning Appeals v. Jacobs
191 N.E.2d 45 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1963)
Collins v. Collins
188 N.E.2d 121 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1963)
Kalbac v. Kalbac
177 N.E.2d 279 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1961)
ABAIR (FORMERLY EVERLY) v. Everly
163 N.E.2d 34 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1959)
Sunn v. Martin
161 N.E.2d 487 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1959)
Wertzberger, Admr., Etc. v. Herd
140 N.E.2d 771 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 N.E.2d 643, 127 Ind. App. 456, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-dba-etc-v-hunt-dba-etc-indctapp-1957.