South v. Parish

Indiana Court of Appeals

South v. Parish

51 N.E.2d 397, 114 Ind. App. 175, 1943 Ind. App. LEXIS 113

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1943

DocketNo. 17,157.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 N.E.2d 397 (South v. Parish) 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

South v. Parish, 51 N.E.2d 397, 114 Ind. App. 175, 1943 Ind. App. LEXIS 113 (Ind. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Draper, J.

The appellant was adjudged to be the father of a child born out of wedlock and required to pay certain sums for its care and support, pursuant to the provisions of Acts 1941, ch. 112 (§ 3-623, et seq., Burns’ 1933 (Supp.)). He filed his motion for new hearing which was overruled and he attempts to appeal thérefrom to this court. Chapter 112, § 18 of the act (§ 3-640, Burns’ 1933 Supp.) provides that the procedure on appeal shall in most respects be the same as is provided for by law and rules for appeal in civil cases.

The overruling of appellant’s motion for new hearing is not assigned as error, nor is any error properly assigned. Although appellant attempts to question the sufficiency of the evidence, the transcript contains no properly certified bill of exceptions containing it. No marginal notations whatever have been made on the margin of the pages of the transcript in compliance *177 with Rule 2-5 of the 1940 Revision of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Subdivisions (d), (e) and (f) of Rule 2-17 are not complied with, and the greater and more vital portions of the evidence have been completely omitted from appellant’s condensed recital thereof. Other omissions have been called to our attention, but it will be unnecessary to notice them;

The appellant has not properly presented any question to this court .and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 51 N. E. (2d) 397.

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

Draper, J.

The appellant was adjudged to be the father of a child born out of wedlock and required to pay certain sums for its care and support, pursuant to the provisions of Acts 1941, ch. 112 (§ 3-623, et seq., Burns’ 1933 (Supp.)). He filed his motion for new hearing which was overruled and he attempts to appeal thérefrom to this court. Chapter 112, § 18 of the act (§ 3-640, Burns’ 1933 Supp.) provides that the procedure on appeal shall in most respects be the same as is provided for by law and rules for appeal in civil cases.

The overruling of appellant’s motion for new hearing is not assigned as error, nor is any error properly assigned. Although appellant attempts to question the sufficiency of the evidence, the transcript contains no properly certified bill of exceptions containing it. No marginal notations whatever have been made on the margin of the pages of the transcript in compliance *177 with Rule 2-5 of the 1940 Revision of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Subdivisions (d), (e) and (f) of Rule 2-17 are not complied with, and the greater and more vital portions of the evidence have been completely omitted from appellant’s condensed recital thereof. Other omissions have been called to our attention, but it will be unnecessary to notice them;

The appellant has not properly presented any question to this court .and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 51 N. E. (2d) 397.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.E.2d 397, 114 Ind. App. 175, 1943 Ind. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-v-parish-indctapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack