Palmer v. Beall

Indiana Court of Appeals

Palmer v. Beall

110 N.E. 218, 60 Ind. App. 208, 1915 Ind. App. LEXIS 27

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1915

DocketNo. 8,738

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 110 N.E. 218 (Palmer v. Beall) 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

Palmer v. Beall, 110 N.E. 218, 60 Ind. App. 208, 1915 Ind. App. LEXIS 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Hottel, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in appellees’ favor in an action brought by them in the court below against appellant to replevin corn and for damages for its detention.

In this court there are ten errors assigned including the one challenging the ruling of the trial court on the motion for new trial. The motion for new trial contains sixteen separate grounds or reasons therefor. In his brief, under the heading “Points and Authorities”, appellant states thirteen general propositions which may have some application to one or more of the rulings assigned as error, and intended to be relied on for reversal, but no reference is made to any particular error so assigned and relied on and no effort is made to apply the propositions stated to any of such errors. This is not a compliance with clause 5 of Rule 22 of the Supreme Court and this court. Leach v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 234, 240, 97 N. E. 792; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. [209]*209Lightheiser (1907), 168 Ind. 438, 460, 78 N. E. 1033; Inland Steel Co. v. Smith (1907), 168 Ind. 245, 252, 80 N. E. 538; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dinius (1913), 180 Ind. 596, 626, 103 N. E. 652; Weidenhammer v. State (1914), 181 Ind. 349, 350, 103 N. E. 413, 104 N. E. 577; Michael v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 676, 678, 679, 99 N. E. 788; Anderson v. State (1913) 179 Ind. 590, 101 N. E. 84; Curry v. City of Evansville (1914), 56 Ind. App. 143, 104 N. E. 978; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Finkelstein (1915), 58 Ind. App. 27, 107 N. E. 557; Town of Newpoint v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. (1915), 59 Ind. App. 147, 107 N. E. 560; German Fire Ins. Co. v. Zonker (1915), 57 Ind. App. 696, 108 N. E. 160. “Mere abstract statements of law or fact,- or both, unless applied specifically to some particular ruling or action of the court, although contained in appellant’s statement of points, present no question.” Leach v. State, supra. See, also, other cases cited, supra.

Other infirmities in appellant’s brief are suggested by appellees, but the one indicated, under the authorities, supra, prevents a consideration of any of the errors relied on for reversal, and authorizes a dismissal of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 110 N. E. 218. See, also, 3 C. J. 1428; 2 Cyc 1016.

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

Hottel, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in appellees’ favor in an action brought by them in the court below against appellant to replevin corn and for damages for its detention.

In this court there are ten errors assigned including the one challenging the ruling of the trial court on the motion for new trial. The motion for new trial contains sixteen separate grounds or reasons therefor. In his brief, under the heading “Points and Authorities”, appellant states thirteen general propositions which may have some application to one or more of the rulings assigned as error, and intended to be relied on for reversal, but no reference is made to any particular error so assigned and relied on and no effort is made to apply the propositions stated to any of such errors. This is not a compliance with clause 5 of Rule 22 of the Supreme Court and this court. Leach v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 234, 240, 97 N. E. 792; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. [209]*209Lightheiser (1907), 168 Ind. 438, 460, 78 N. E. 1033; Inland Steel Co. v. Smith (1907), 168 Ind. 245, 252, 80 N. E. 538; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dinius (1913), 180 Ind. 596, 626, 103 N. E. 652; Weidenhammer v. State (1914), 181 Ind. 349, 350, 103 N. E. 413, 104 N. E. 577; Michael v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 676, 678, 679, 99 N. E. 788; Anderson v. State (1913) 179 Ind. 590, 101 N. E. 84; Curry v. City of Evansville (1914), 56 Ind. App. 143, 104 N. E. 978; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Finkelstein (1915), 58 Ind. App. 27, 107 N. E. 557; Town of Newpoint v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. (1915), 59 Ind. App. 147, 107 N. E. 560; German Fire Ins. Co. v. Zonker (1915), 57 Ind. App. 696, 108 N. E. 160. “Mere abstract statements of law or fact,- or both, unless applied specifically to some particular ruling or action of the court, although contained in appellant’s statement of points, present no question.” Leach v. State, supra. See, also, other cases cited, supra.

Other infirmities in appellant’s brief are suggested by appellees, but the one indicated, under the authorities, supra, prevents a consideration of any of the errors relied on for reversal, and authorizes a dismissal of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 110 N. E. 218. See, also, 3 C. J. 1428; 2 Cyc 1016.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 N.E. 218, 60 Ind. App. 208, 1915 Ind. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-beall-indctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack