Baublett v. Strickler, 23539.

Decision Date13 May 1921
Docket NumberNo. 23539.,23539.
Citation190 Ind. 548,131 N.E. 1
PartiesBAUBLETT et al. v. STRICKLER et al.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wabash County; Nelson G. Hunter, Judge.

Petition by Abbie Strickler and others to have a public dredge ditch cleaned, opposed by John Baublett and others. A report of the drainage commissioners ordering the ditch to be cleaned and apportioning the costs was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court, and the opponents appeal. Appeal dismissed.

D. F. Brooks, of Wabash, for appellants.

Frank O. Switzer and Walter S. Bent, both of Wabash, for appellees.

EWBANK, J.

The appellees petitioned to have a public dredge ditch cleaned, under the provisions of Acts 1917, c. 124, p. 384. The circuit court docketed the petition and referred the matter to the drainage commissioners of the three counties into which the ditch extends. The drainage commissioners made a report estimating the cubic yards of excavation, and apportioning the cost to the several tracts of land which they reported to be affected. A hearing before the drainage commissioners on the day fixed for filing the report resulted in some changes, modifying the assessments against some of the lands reported affected. An appeal was duly taken to the circuit court, where the appellants filed numerous motions, both before and after the trial, all of which were overruled, and after a hearing the court ordered the ditch cleaned as reported by the drainage commissioners. The errors properly assigned in this court are that the trial court erred in overruling the motions of appellants for a new trial, and to strike out part of the report, respectively.

[1] That a designated statute is unconstitutional, or is in conflict with a certain section of the Constitution of the state or of the United States, without pointing out the ruling complained of as having been made in violation of the rule of law so asserted, is not a proper assignment of error, and presents no question. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Wolcott, 162 Ind. 399, 401, 69 N. E. 451; Ewbank, Manual (2d Ed.) § 133.

There are many defects in appellant's brief, among which are that it does not set out either of the motions referred to as having been overruled, nor state that appellant reserved an exception to any ruling complained of, and that the “points and authorities” are confined solely to the proposition that Acts 1917, c. 124, pp. 384-401, is unconstitutional, without suggesting how the question of its...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT