Salinger v. Rupel

Indiana Court of Appeals

Salinger v. Rupel

135 N.E. 179, 78 Ind. App. 197, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 93

Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided April 18, 1922·No. No. 11,088·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

McMahan, J.

— Appellant appeals from a decree foreclosing a mechanic’s lien, and in support of his assignment of errors and brief in support thereof has made a prima facie showing of reversible errors. Appellee has filed no brief and under the circumstances we will treat such failure as a confession of errors.

The judgment is therefore 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

McMahan, J.

— Appellant appeals from a decree foreclosing a mechanic’s lien, and in support of his assignment of errors and brief in support thereof has made a prima facie showing of reversible errors. Appellee has filed no brief and under the circumstances we will treat such failure as a confession of errors.

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

Salinger v. Rupel, 135 N.E. 179, 78 Ind. App. 197, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 93 (Ind. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

135 N.E. 179 (Salinger v. Rupel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related