American Fid. Co. of Montpelier, Vt. v. Indianapolis Mortar & Fuel Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,785.,21,785. |
| Citation | 98 N.E. 709,178 Ind. 133 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | AMERICAN FIDELITY CO. OF MONTPELIER, VT., v. INDIANAPOLIS MORTAR & FUEL CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Chas. Remster, Judge.
Action by the Indianapolis Mortar & Fuel Company against the American Fidelity Company of Montpelier, Vt., and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant named appeals. Affirmed.
Samuel O. Pickens, Charles W. Moores, R. F. Davidson, and Owen Pickens, for appellant. Ryan & Ruckelshaus and Groninger & Groninger, for appellee.
This action was brought by appellee against Thomas J. Markey, as principal, and appellant, as surety, upon bonds given to secure certain contracts between said Markey and the city of Indianapolis for the construction of sewers in said city. Appellee's demurrer for want of facts to the third and fourth paragraphs of answer was sustained. A trial of said cause by the court resulted in a finding in favor of appellee,and, over a motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered against appellant.
It is insisted by appellant that the court erred in admitting evidence during the trial. The statement of points in appellant's brief only refers to two causes for a new trial; but neither said causes for a new trial, nor the substance thereof, is set out in appellant's brief, as required by rule 22 of this court. It is not stated or shown what specific objection, if any, was made in the court below to the admission of said evidence; nor is it stated or shown that any exception was reserved to the ruling of the court in admitting said evidence, as required by said rule. It has been uniformly held that said rule requires that appellant's brief be so prepared that all questions presented by the assignment of errors can be determined by an examination of the brief, without looking to the record; and that to the extent said rule has been complied with the errors assigned will be determined, and the others will be considered waived. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co. v. Shelley, 163 Ind. 36, 47, 48, 71 N. E. 151, and cases cited. No question is therefore presented as to the admissibility of said evidence.
The other questions presented in this cause are the same as those decided in Ætna Indemnity Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., Co. (No. 21,786) 98 N. E. 706, this term, and upon the authority of that case the judgment in this cause is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Born v. Lafayette Auto Co.
...affirm the case, but will not do so in behalf of appellant to reverse the judgment of the trial court. American, etc., Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., Co. (1912) 178 Ind. 133, 98 N. E. 709. It is noted in appellant's reply brief that he claims that this objection is overcome because it sets fort......
-
Peter & Burghard Stone Co. v. Marion Nat. Bank of Marion
...question is therefore presented. Slifer v. Williard, 78 Ind. App. 88, 131 N. E. 87, 88, 132 N. E. 321;American Fidelity Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., Co., 178 Ind. 133, 134, 98 N. E. 709;Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen, 179 Ind. 142, 145, 100 N. E. 465. [6][7][8] Mere reference to the questio......
-
American Fidelity Company of Monpelier, Vermont v. Indianapolis Mortar and Fuel Company
... ... Action ... by the Indianapolis Mortar and Fuel Company against the ... American Fidelity Company of Montpelier, Vermont, and ... another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant ... American Fidelity Company of Montpelier, Vermont, appeals ... ...