Smith, Admr. v. Cedan

Indiana Court of Appeals

Smith, Admr. v. Cedan

184 N.E. 426, 97 Ind. App. 44, 1933 Ind. App. LEXIS 49

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 1933

DocketNo. 14,614.

StatusPublished

This text of 184 N.E. 426 (Smith, Admr. v. Cedan) 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

Smith, Admr. v. Cedan, 184 N.E. 426, 97 Ind. App. 44, 1933 Ind. App. LEXIS 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Kime, P. J.

— Appellee, plaintiff below, brought an action in the Lake Superior Court to set aside the last will and testament of Mary Roberts Cedan, deceased. From a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee, appellant appeals.

The transcript herein does not contain an assignment of errors nor is such an assignment attached thereto as required by Rule 4 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts, and Section 719, Burns Ann. St. 1926. We have on file here a paper which had previously been filed in open court by the Lake Superior Court, which appellant denominates an assignment of error. “This paper was found among motions and other papers filed in this case which are contained in a jacket provided for that purpose. It is not attached to the record and cannot be considered as a proper assignment of errors.” Huber et al. v. Tielking et al. (1914), 55 Ind. App. 577, 103 N. E. 853, 104 N. E. 314; Wiggs *45 v. Koontz (1873), 43 Ind. 430; Tays v. Johns (1873), 43 Ind. 430; Hays v. Johns (1873), 42 Ind. 505.

For the failure to comply with the above rules this 2. cause is dismissed and it is so ordered.

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

Kime, P. J.

— Appellee, plaintiff below, brought an action in the Lake Superior Court to set aside the last will and testament of Mary Roberts Cedan, deceased. From a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee, appellant appeals.

The transcript herein does not contain an assignment of errors nor is such an assignment attached thereto as required by Rule 4 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts, and Section 719, Burns Ann. St. 1926. We have on file here a paper which had previously been filed in open court by the Lake Superior Court, which appellant denominates an assignment of error. “This paper was found among motions and other papers filed in this case which are contained in a jacket provided for that purpose. It is not attached to the record and cannot be considered as a proper assignment of errors.” Huber et al. v. Tielking et al. (1914), 55 Ind. App. 577, 103 N. E. 853, 104 N. E. 314; Wiggs *45 v. Koontz (1873), 43 Ind. 430; Tays v. Johns (1873), 43 Ind. 430; Hays v. Johns (1873), 42 Ind. 505.

For the failure to comply with the above rules this 2. cause is dismissed and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 N.E. 426, 97 Ind. App. 44, 1933 Ind. App. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-admr-v-cedan-indctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack