Preuss v. Heaton

Indiana Court of Appeals

Preuss v. Heaton

11 N.E.2d 513, 104 Ind. App. 429, 1937 Ind. App. LEXIS 72

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 16, 1937

DocketNo. 15,696.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 N.E.2d 513 (Preuss v. Heaton) 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

Preuss v. Heaton, 11 N.E.2d 513, 104 Ind. App. 429, 1937 Ind. App. LEXIS 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Kime, J.

This is alleged to have been an action, for *430 possession of real estate and seeking damages for the unlawful detention thereof, wherein the appellee was successful in having the trial court direct a verdict in her favor after she had waived damages.

The error attempted to be presented is the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

The brief submitted on behalf of the appellants does not disclose that a final judgment was ever entered or the date thereof if so rendered. It does not disclose when the motion for a new trial was filed or overruled or whether or not an appeal bond was filed within the time allowed. Furthermore it does not disclose that the attempted appeal was taken within the time allowed by statute.

Since there is .a failure to follow the steps necessary, as made mandatory by the rules, there must be a dismissal.

Appeal dismissed.

Curtis, J. not participating.

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