State ex rel. Biddle v. Birden

Indiana Supreme Court

State ex rel. Biddle v. Birden

119 N.E. 865, 187 Ind. 466, 1918 Ind. LEXIS 53

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 21, 1918

DocketNo. 23,176

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 119 N.E. 865 (State ex rel. Biddle v. Birden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Biddle v. Birden, 119 N.E. 865, 187 Ind. 466, 1918 Ind. LEXIS 53 (Ind. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Lairy, J.

1. The only error properly assigned in this appeal is based upon the overruling of appellants’ motion for a new trial. Neither the motion for new trial, nor the substance thereof, is set out in appellants’ original brief, and all questions sought to be presented thereby are therefore waived. Robbins v. Bank (1917), 186 Ind. 573, 117 N. E. 562; Pugh v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. (1915), 184 Ind. 350, 110 N. E. 193.

2. After appellants’ attention was called to the defects in their original brief by appellee’s answer brief, they made no attempt to amend their brief, but merely -inserted the omitted material into their reply brief. This court has been very liberal in permitting the amendment of appellant’s briefs, but it has repeatedly held that the failure to properly present any question .or review in an original brief cannot be cured by correctly presenting the matter in a reply brief. Gates v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (1899), 154 Ind. 338, 56 N. E. 722; Waters v. Delagrange (1915), 183 Ind. 497, 109 N. E. 758; Fox v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 299, 116 N. E. 295.

There being no error presented for the consideration of this court, the judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 119 N. E. 865.

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

Lairy, J.

1. The only error properly assigned in this appeal is based upon the overruling of appellants’ motion for a new trial. Neither the motion for new trial, nor the substance thereof, is set out in appellants’ original brief, and all questions sought to be presented thereby are therefore waived. Robbins v. Bank (1917), 186 Ind. 573, 117 N. E. 562; Pugh v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. (1915), 184 Ind. 350, 110 N. E. 193.

2. After appellants’ attention was called to the defects in their original brief by appellee’s answer brief, they made no attempt to amend their brief, but merely -inserted the omitted material into their reply brief. This court has been very liberal in permitting the amendment of appellant’s briefs, but it has repeatedly held that the failure to properly present any question .or review in an original brief cannot be cured by correctly presenting the matter in a reply brief. Gates v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. (1899), 154 Ind. 338, 56 N. E. 722; Waters v. Delagrange (1915), 183 Ind. 497, 109 N. E. 758; Fox v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 299, 116 N. E. 295.

There being no error presented for the consideration of this court, the judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 119 N. E. 865.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 N.E. 865, 187 Ind. 466, 1918 Ind. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-biddle-v-birden-ind-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack