Veit v. Windhorst

110 N.E. 666, 184 Ind. 351, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 164
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1915
DocketNo. 22,951
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 110 N.E. 666 (Veit v. Windhorst) 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
Veit v. Windhorst, 110 N.E. 666, 184 Ind. 351, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 164 (Ind. 1915).

Opinion

Spencer, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Dearborn Circuit Court establishing a boundary line between adjacent lands owned by appellant Yeit and appellee. The cause was submitted on February 19, 1914, and appellants’ brief on the merits thereof was filed on April 8, 1914. On May 2, 1914, appellee filed a motion, supported by briefs, to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no question is properly presented thereby. This motion was overruled on May 12, 1914. On October 26, 1915, this cause was • transferred to this court, but appellee has never filed any brief in support of the judgment below.

We have frequently held that where appellee fails to file a brief controverting the errors complained of by appellant, such failure may be taken or deemed to be a confession of such errors, for which the court may reverse the judgment and remand the cause without prejudice to either party. Burroughs v. Burroughs (1913), 180 Ind. 380, 103 N. E. 1, and cases cited; Eigelsbach v. Kanne (1915), ante 62, 110 N. E. 549.

The alleged error which is most seriously presented by appellants has reference to a certain matter of procedure rather than to any question of sub[353]*353stantive law which would probably arise on a retrial of the issues, and in view of appellee’s failure to sustain such procedure, which, it is claimed, prevented a fair trial of the cause, we are constrained to adopt in this case the rule above referred to. Judgment is reversed, with instructions to sustain appellants’ motion for a new trial. Cause remanded for further proceedings.

Note. — Reported in 110 N. E. 666. See, also, 3 C. J. 1446; 2 Cyc 1024.

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

Related

Ellet v. Ellet
205 N.E.2d 555 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1965)
American Legion of Indiana v. Neal, Gdn.
171 N.E. 927 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1930)
Bryant v. School Town of Oakland City
171 N.E. 378 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1930)
Feldman v. Elmore
163 N.E. 846 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1928)
Miller v. Ray
142 N.E. 654 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1924)
Glencoe Cotton Mills v. Capital Paper Co.
128 N.E. 699 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Union Traction Co. v. Wolf
127 N.E. 564 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Peter Hand Brewing Co. v. Stamper
124 N.E. 876 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1919)
Public Utilities Co. v. McDonald
122 N.E. 11 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1919)
Huddleston v. Huddleston
110 N.E. 980 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1916)
Richmond Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Rau
110 N.E. 666 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 N.E. 666, 184 Ind. 351, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veit-v-windhorst-ind-1915.