Wischmeyer v. Fisher

Indiana Court of Appeals

Wischmeyer v. Fisher

161 N.E.2d 485, 130 Ind. App. 245, 1959 Ind. App. LEXIS 165

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 14, 1959

Docket19,155

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 161 N.E.2d 485 (Wischmeyer v. Fisher) 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

Wischmeyer v. Fisher, 161 N.E.2d 485, 130 Ind. App. 245, 1959 Ind. App. LEXIS 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinions

Cooper, J.

This is an appeal by the appellant, defendant below, from a judgment of the Shelby Circuit Court in favor of the appellee, plaintiff below, in an action in two paragraphs growing out of a sales contract for the purchase of real estate. The record reveals that after the issues were properly closed, the cause was submitted to the court without a jury. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the appellees. Thereafter, the appellants herein filed their Motion for a New Trial, which was overruled, and this appeal followed.

Once again we are confronted with the proposition of the appellant failing to comply with the Rules of [247]*247the Supreme Court concerning the contents of the appellants’ brief.

As we have many times heretofore stated, and recently re-stated in the case of Stillabower v. Lizart (1959), 130 Ind. App. 65, 159 N. E. 2d 144, at 145:

“While it is the desire of this court to decide appeals upon the merits rather than upon technical grounds, we must insist upon a good-faith effort to comply with the applicable rules as stated by our Supreme Court. The Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana have the force and effect of law and are binding upon us as well as the parties in an appeal. We do not deem it necessary to cite authorities upon this proposition, except to state that many authorities on this point can be found in Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton’s Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, and West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia.”

In the case now before us, the appellants’ brief does not undertake to set out the Motion for a New Trial, either in text or in substance, and, under these circumstances, the brief is insufficient to present any questions upon the merits under our Supreme Court Rule 2-17; therefore, the appellants’ assignment of error, that the trial court erred in overruling the appellants’ Motion for a New Trial, unfortunately presents no question for decision of this court. See Lincoln Twp., St. Joseph Co. v. Ancilla, Domini Sisters (1959) (T. D. May 28, 1959), 129 Ind. App. 539, 154 N. E. 2d 420, and authorities cited.

We hold that the appellants’ brief is insufficient to present any question upon the merits.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cooper, J.

This is an appeal by the appellant, defendant below, from a judgment of the Shelby Circuit Court in favor of the appellee, plaintiff below, in an action in two paragraphs growing out of a sales contract for the purchase of real estate. The record reveals that after the issues were properly closed, the cause was submitted to the court without a jury. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the appellees. Thereafter, the appellants herein filed their Motion for a New Trial, which was overruled, and this appeal followed.

Once again we are confronted with the proposition of the appellant failing to comply with the Rules of [247]*247the Supreme Court concerning the contents of the appellants’ brief.

As we have many times heretofore stated, and recently re-stated in the case of Stillabower v. Lizart (1959), 130 Ind. App. 65, 159 N. E. 2d 144, at 145:

“While it is the desire of this court to decide appeals upon the merits rather than upon technical grounds, we must insist upon a good-faith effort to comply with the applicable rules as stated by our Supreme Court. The Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana have the force and effect of law and are binding upon us as well as the parties in an appeal. We do not deem it necessary to cite authorities upon this proposition, except to state that many authorities on this point can be found in Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton’s Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, and West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia.”

In the case now before us, the appellants’ brief does not undertake to set out the Motion for a New Trial, either in text or in substance, and, under these circumstances, the brief is insufficient to present any questions upon the merits under our Supreme Court Rule 2-17; therefore, the appellants’ assignment of error, that the trial court erred in overruling the appellants’ Motion for a New Trial, unfortunately presents no question for decision of this court. See Lincoln Twp., St. Joseph Co. v. Ancilla, Domini Sisters (1959) (T. D. May 28, 1959), 129 Ind. App. 539, 154 N. E. 2d 420, and authorities cited.

We hold that the appellants’ brief is insufficient to present any question upon the merits.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.E.2d 485, 130 Ind. App. 245, 1959 Ind. App. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wischmeyer-v-fisher-indctapp-1959.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack