Smith v. Finney

Decided April 10, 1914

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1914-04-10

<p>1. Appeal. — Briefs. — Questions Revieioable. — ■ Where appellants’ briefs utterly fail to comply with the rules of court, no question is presented for review on appeal, p. 94.</p> <p>2. Appeal. — Jurisdiction.—Failure to Assign Error. — An assignment of errors is essential to give the court jurisdiction of an appeal, and in the absence of such assignment a dismissal is required. p. 94.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1918

3 state decisions

Relies on Albaugh Bros., Dover & Co. v. Lynas · Rupel v. Ohio Oil Co. · Schilling v. Quinn

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1914-04-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ibach, J.

¶1 *941. 2.*93Appellants’ briefs utterly fail to comply with the rules of this court. Among other defects, no proposi*94turns or points are stated, nor are any authorities cited in support of any error attempted to he presented, and for this reason alone nothing is before us for our consideration. Rupel v. Ohio Oil Co. (1911), 176 Ind. 4, 95 N. E. 225, Ann. Cas. 1913 E. 836; Albaugh Bros., etc., Co. v. Lynas (1911), 47 Ind. App. 30, 93 N. E. 678; Schilling v. Quinn (1912), 178 Ind. 443, 99 N. E. 740. However, upon examination of the transcript, we find no assignment of errors. An assignment of errors is necessary to give this court jurisdiction. Elliott, App. Proc. §303; Ewbank’s Manual §124. In the absence of an assignment of errors, the cause must be dismissed.

¶2Appeal dismissed.

¶3Note. — Reported in 104 N. E. 887. See, also, under (1) 2 Cyc. 1013. (2) 2 Cyc. 1010.