189 N.E.2d 592 (Ind.App. 1 Div. 1963), 19535, Johnson v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp.

Docket Nº:19535.
Citation:189 N.E.2d 592, 134 Ind.App. 477
Party Name:Kenneth H. JOHNSON, Raymond F. Fallen, Juanita M. Miller, Delores Esther Schmidt, Bertha Colbern, Norman Hooe, Walter Dunn, Willie H. Schneider, as individuals and as representatives of a class, Appellants, v. HOOSIER CARDINAL CORPORATION, Appellee.
Case Date:April 18, 1963
Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Page 592

189 N.E.2d 592 (Ind.App. 1 Div. 1963)

134 Ind.App. 477

Kenneth H. JOHNSON, Raymond F. Fallen, Juanita M. Miller,

Delores Esther Schmidt, Bertha Colbern, Norman Hooe, Walter

Dunn, Willie H. Schneider, as individuals and as

representatives of a class, Appellants,

v.

HOOSIER CARDINAL CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 19535.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

April 18, 1963

[134 Ind.App. 478] Lynnville G. Miles, and Daniel F. Cummings, Indianapolis, for appellants.

Isidor Kahn, and Harry P. Dees, Evansville, for appellee.

CARSON, Judge.

This is an action begun by the filing of a complaint in the Superior Court of Vanderburgh County by eight plaintiffs in their own names and as representatives of a class. The defendant filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint alleging failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The memorandum in substance pointed out that this was not a proper class action.

From an examination of the appellants' brief, we are unable to find any assignment of error. Under the provisions of Rule 2-17(e) of the Supreme Court of Indiana it is provided that the brief shall contain:

'* * * a specification of such of the assigned errors as are intended to be urged, each cause in the motion for a new trial which is intended to be urged.'

Page 593

Substantial compliance with the rules concerning the preparation of briefs so that the court properly understands the questions sought to be presented is ordinarily sufficient. Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton's, Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, § 2661 and cases cited. In the Matter of Estate of Stuart et al. v. Kesterson et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App. 130, 159 N.E.2d 321.

The failure of the appellants' brief to contain an assignment of error, as in many cases, is considered jurisdictional and would normally be the basis for dismissal. There is however in the appellants' brief a second and equally serious defect which we feel merits discussion at this point. In [134 Ind.App. 479] the appellants' brief they set out the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in substance. The defendant below, the appellees herein, filed a demurrer to such third amended complaint.

We are at loss to understand how we can dispose of a ruling on a demurrer when the complaint is not set out in full. A demurrer which is based upon the failure of the complaint to state facts...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP