Seibert v. City of Evansville

Indiana Court of Appeals

Seibert v. City of Evansville

149 N.E. 90, 83 Ind. App. 445, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 59

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 1925

DocketNo. 12,345.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 N.E. 90 (Seibert v. City of Evansville) 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

Seibert v. City of Evansville, 149 N.E. 90, 83 Ind. App. 445, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant, in his brief filed’herein, informs us that “this is an action for an injunction, based upon a verified complaint, filed in the Vanderburgh Probate Court, * * *, asking for an injunction against the defendants enjoining them, and each of them, from enforcing a judgment rendered against him in the City Court of the City of Evansville.”

Under a heading—“What the issues are”—he says: “That the judgment is void because * * *,” and he proceeds to state five alleged reasons why, as he thinks, some judgment is erroneous and void, but whether the said judgment to which he refers is the judgment the enforcement of which he sought to enjoin, or the judgment from which this appeal was prosecuted—if there was any such judgment—is left entirely to-conjecture.

Nowhere in his brief is a copy of his said complaint set out; the brief herein fails to inform us as to the nature of the judgment appealed from; we are left to surmise as to whether a demurrer was interposed to his said complaint and the same sustained and .judgment rendered against appellant thereon, or, as to whether there was a trial of this cause upon the merits which-resulted in a judgment against appellant; he has not informed us as to the specific error or errors of which he complains, and, from said brief, it is impossible to tell whether he is complaining of a ruling upon a demurrer, the admitting or the excluding of evidence, or the overruling of a motion for a new trial; the brief *447 contains no statement of “Errors Assigned,” or of “Errors Relied Upon for Reversal”; no demurrer or motion for a new trial is mentioned in said brief, if any was filed.

Counsel for- appellant has utterly ignored Rule 22 of the Supreme Court, and of this court, in the preparation of said brief, and said brief is so prepared that no question is presented for our consideration arid the cause-must therefore be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The appellant, in his brief filed’herein, informs us that “this is an action for an injunction, based upon a verified complaint, filed in the Vanderburgh Probate Court, * * *, asking for an injunction against the defendants enjoining them, and each of them, from enforcing a judgment rendered against him in the City Court of the City of Evansville.”

Under a heading—“What the issues are”—he says: “That the judgment is void because * * *,” and he proceeds to state five alleged reasons why, as he thinks, some judgment is erroneous and void, but whether the said judgment to which he refers is the judgment the enforcement of which he sought to enjoin, or the judgment from which this appeal was prosecuted—if there was any such judgment—is left entirely to-conjecture.

Nowhere in his brief is a copy of his said complaint set out; the brief herein fails to inform us as to the nature of the judgment appealed from; we are left to surmise as to whether a demurrer was interposed to his said complaint and the same sustained and .judgment rendered against appellant thereon, or, as to whether there was a trial of this cause upon the merits which-resulted in a judgment against appellant; he has not informed us as to the specific error or errors of which he complains, and, from said brief, it is impossible to tell whether he is complaining of a ruling upon a demurrer, the admitting or the excluding of evidence, or the overruling of a motion for a new trial; the brief *447 contains no statement of “Errors Assigned,” or of “Errors Relied Upon for Reversal”; no demurrer or motion for a new trial is mentioned in said brief, if any was filed.

Counsel for- appellant has utterly ignored Rule 22 of the Supreme Court, and of this court, in the preparation of said brief, and said brief is so prepared that no question is presented for our consideration arid the cause-must therefore be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 N.E. 90, 83 Ind. App. 445, 1925 Ind. App. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seibert-v-city-of-evansville-indctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack