Stirn v. Vohland

Indiana Court of Appeals

Stirn v. Vohland

1 N.E.2d 654, 102 Ind. App. 216, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 90

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 1936

DocketNo. 15,281.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 N.E.2d 654 (Stirn v. Vohland) 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

Stirn v. Vohland, 1 N.E.2d 654, 102 Ind. App. 216, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

*217 Wiecking, J. —

This is an attempted appeal from a j udgment of the Franklin Circuit Court. The only error assigned here is the action of the trial court in overruling the appellants’ motion for a new trial. Neither a copy of the motion for a new trial nor the substance of the motion is set out in the appellants’ briefs. However, the appellee in his brief has set out the substance of the motion for new trial designating as causes for reversal five grounds challenging the sufficiency, of the evidence to support the decision of the court; that the decision of the court is contrary to law; and error in assessing the amount of the recovery, it being too large. The brief of the appellants also fails to show that any time was given by the trial court in which to file any bills of exceptions containing the evidence and proceedings of the trial court or that any bill of exceptions was ever approved by such trial court or was ever filed or made a part of the record. In such a state of the record, no question is presented to this court for consideration. United Paper Board Co. v. Muncie, etc., Co. (1926), 84 Ind. App. 333, 151 N. E. 365; Indiana Service Corporation v . Dailey (1928), 87 Ind. App. 6, 159 N. E. 767; see also Melvin et al. v. Hamilton et al. (1936), 101 Ind. App. 456, 199 N. E. 602; Rule 21, Supreme and Appellate Courts of Indiana.

The judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

*217 Wiecking, J. —

This is an attempted appeal from a j udgment of the Franklin Circuit Court. The only error assigned here is the action of the trial court in overruling the appellants’ motion for a new trial. Neither a copy of the motion for a new trial nor the substance of the motion is set out in the appellants’ briefs. However, the appellee in his brief has set out the substance of the motion for new trial designating as causes for reversal five grounds challenging the sufficiency, of the evidence to support the decision of the court; that the decision of the court is contrary to law; and error in assessing the amount of the recovery, it being too large. The brief of the appellants also fails to show that any time was given by the trial court in which to file any bills of exceptions containing the evidence and proceedings of the trial court or that any bill of exceptions was ever approved by such trial court or was ever filed or made a part of the record. In such a state of the record, no question is presented to this court for consideration. United Paper Board Co. v. Muncie, etc., Co. (1926), 84 Ind. App. 333, 151 N. E. 365; Indiana Service Corporation v . Dailey (1928), 87 Ind. App. 6, 159 N. E. 767; see also Melvin et al. v. Hamilton et al. (1936), 101 Ind. App. 456, 199 N. E. 602; Rule 21, Supreme and Appellate Courts of Indiana.

The judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.E.2d 654, 102 Ind. App. 216, 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stirn-v-vohland-indctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack