Shatz v. Alexandria Gas Co.

73 N.E. 1094, 35 Ind. App. 310, 1905 Ind. App. LEXIS 92
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided April 21, 1905·No. No. 5,077·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Black, J.

A demurrer, for want of sufficient facts, to each of the three paragraphs of the appellant’s complaint was sustained, and the appellant has assigned errors by three specifications, each relating to a separate paragraph of the complaint.

There is failure on the part of the appellant to comply with clause five of rule twenty-two of this court. Manifestly such an assignment of errors contemplates an examination as to the sufficiency of each paragraph of the complaint separately considered as an attempted complete statement of a cause of action. In the short statement in the appellant’s brief there are some general remarks relating to the purpose of the action, with a few meager references to some alleged averments of the complaint, with some observations having the color of argument. There is no attempt to set out the contents of either paragraph of the complaint in full, or to state succinctly its contents as a whole, nor does the statement seek to show the differences, if any, between the separate paragraphs, or in any way to discriminate between them, and what is said is asserted of the complaint as a whole, without showing in the statement the facts constituting the necessary ingredients of any cause of action. It must he assumed that the court below ruled correctly, the contrary not being adequately shown in the manner required by our rules.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Shatz v. Alexandria Gas Co., 73 N.E. 1094, 35 Ind. App. 310, 1905 Ind. App. LEXIS 92 (Ind. Ct. App. 1905).

73 N.E. 1094 (Shatz v. Alexandria Gas Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marriage of Glover v. Torrence
723 N.E.2d 924 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2000)
Scott Admr. v. Scott
127 N.E.2d 110 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1955)
Petzold v. McGregor
176 N.E. 640 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1931)
Schwartz v. Holycross
149 N.E. 699 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1925)
Brannan v. Kelley
148 N.E. 157 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1925)
Wilson v. Jinks
115 N.E. 67 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Reed v. Robbins
108 N.E. 780 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Judah v. F. H. Cheyne Electric Co.
101 N.E. 1039 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1913)
Crawfordsville Trust Co. v. Ramsey
100 N.E. 1049 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1913)
Bradley v. Harter
93 N.E. 1081 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1911)