Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 Ind. App. 208

Palmer v. Beall

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided November 19, 1915

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1915-11-19

<p>Appeal. — Insufficient Briefs. — Dismissal.—Where a number of errors were assigned, appellant’s brief, which under “points and authorities” contained a number of general propositions that might have been applicable to one or more of the rulings assigned as error, without any reference or effort to apply such propositions to any error assigned, was insufficient under clause 5 of Rule 22 to present any question, and necessitated a dismissal.</p>

Relies on Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Lightheiser · Chicago & Erie Railroad v. Dinius · Inland Steel Co. v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1915-11-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently February 1932

23 state decisions

200191519201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hottel, J.

¶1This is an appeal from a judgment in appellees’ favor in an action brought by them in the court below against appellant to replevin corn and for damages for its detention.

¶2In this court there are ten errors assigned including the one challenging the ruling of the trial court on the motion for new trial. The motion for new trial contains sixteen separate grounds or reasons therefor. In his brief, under the heading “Points and Authorities”, appellant states thirteen general propositions which may have some application to one or more of the rulings assigned as error, and intended to be relied on for reversal, but no reference is made to any particular error so assigned and relied on and no effort is made to apply the propositions stated to any of such errors. This is not a compliance with clause 5 of Rule 22 of the Supreme Court and this court. Leach v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 234, 240, 97 N. E. 792; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. *209Lightheiser (1907), 168 Ind. 438, 460, 78 N. E. 1033; Inland Steel Co. v. Smith (1907), 168 Ind. 245, 252, 80 N. E. 538; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dinius (1913), 180 Ind. 596, 626, 103 N. E. 652; Weidenhammer v. State (1914), 181 Ind. 349, 350, 103 N. E. 413, 104 N. E. 577; Michael v. State (1912), 178 Ind. 676, 678, 679, 99 N. E. 788; Anderson v. State (1913) 179 Ind. 590, 101 N. E. 84; Curry v. City of Evansville (1914), 56 Ind. App. 143, 104 N. E. 978; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Finkelstein (1915), 58 Ind. App. 27, 107 N. E. 557; Town of Newpoint v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. (1915), 59 Ind. App. 147, 107 N. E. 560; German Fire Ins. Co. v. Zonker (1915), 57 Ind. App. 696, 108 N. E. 160. “Mere abstract statements of law or fact,- or both, unless applied specifically to some particular ruling or action of the court, although contained in appellant’s statement of points, present no question.” Leach v. State, supra. See, also, other cases cited, supra.

¶3Other infirmities in appellant’s brief are suggested by appellees, but the one indicated, under the authorities, supra, prevents a consideration of any of the errors relied on for reversal, and authorizes a dismissal of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.

¶4Note. — Reported in 110 N. E. 218. See, also, 3 C. J. 1428; 2 Cyc 1016.

/60/indapp/208 · .json · Public domain