Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Linder

Indiana Supreme Court

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Linder

145 N.E. 885, 195 Ind. 569, 1925 Ind. LEXIS 150

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 1925

DocketNo. 24,152.

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 145 N.E. 885 (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Linder) 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

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Linder, 145 N.E. 885, 195 Ind. 569, 1925 Ind. LEXIS 150 (Ind. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment establishing and ordering the construction of a public drain. On August 1, 1922, appellant filed its brief, setting out each of fourteen assignments of errors, and stating forty-six “points” in support of its contention that the trial court committed a number of errors for which the judgment should be reversed. Counsel for appellees receipted for the transcript on August 29, 1922, and, after having been granted one extension of time in which to file a brief, asked and obtained a second extension to and including February 5, 1923. The record does not show that anything further has been done, and although more than *570 two years have elapsed since the brief for appellees should have been filed, "they have offered the court no assistance whatever in determining whether or not appellant’s contention that the trial court erred is well founded. Where the brief on behalf of appellant makes a prima facie showing that reversible error was committed, this court may, in its discretion, treat the failure of appellees to file a brief, attempting to aid the court in learning whether or not reversible error in fact was committed, as a confession of errors, and may reverse the judgment as upon such a confession. Burroughs v . Burroughs (1918), 180 Ind. 380, 103 N. E. 1; Ewbank’s Manual (2d. ed.) §§190, 190a.

That the drainage petition did not describe two-thirds of the aggregate length of the work as reported for construction, or did not describe two-thirds in area of the lands that would be affected by the construction of the drain as reported, in compliance with §6142f Burns’ Supp. 1921, §2%, Acts 1919 p. 492, is cause for setting aside the report of the drainage commissioners, on proper remonstrance, but is not an objection that can be presented by a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. In re Gilbert (1924), ante 278, 144 N. E. 551.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment establishing and ordering the construction of a public drain. On August 1, 1922, appellant filed its brief, setting out each of fourteen assignments of errors, and stating forty-six “points” in support of its contention that the trial court committed a number of errors for which the judgment should be reversed. Counsel for appellees receipted for the transcript on August 29, 1922, and, after having been granted one extension of time in which to file a brief, asked and obtained a second extension to and including February 5, 1923. The record does not show that anything further has been done, and although more than *570 two years have elapsed since the brief for appellees should have been filed, "they have offered the court no assistance whatever in determining whether or not appellant’s contention that the trial court erred is well founded. Where the brief on behalf of appellant makes a prima facie showing that reversible error was committed, this court may, in its discretion, treat the failure of appellees to file a brief, attempting to aid the court in learning whether or not reversible error in fact was committed, as a confession of errors, and may reverse the judgment as upon such a confession. Burroughs v . Burroughs (1918), 180 Ind. 380, 103 N. E. 1; Ewbank’s Manual (2d. ed.) §§190, 190a.

That the drainage petition did not describe two-thirds of the aggregate length of the work as reported for construction, or did not describe two-thirds in area of the lands that would be affected by the construction of the drain as reported, in compliance with §6142f Burns’ Supp. 1921, §2%, Acts 1919 p. 492, is cause for setting aside the report of the drainage commissioners, on proper remonstrance, but is not an objection that can be presented by a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. In re Gilbert (1924), ante 278, 144 N. E. 551.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 N.E. 885, 195 Ind. 569, 1925 Ind. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittsburgh-cincinnati-chicago-st-louis-railroad-v-linder-ind-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack