Bennett v. James H. Drew Corp., 18826
| Citation | 133 N.E.2d 886,126 Ind.App. 557 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 18826,18826 |
| Parties | Ora BENNETT, Appellant, v. JAMES H. DREW CORPORATION, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Walter C. Reese, Shelbyville, for appellant.
E. J. Bunny, William B. Weisell, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Weisell, Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant has attempted to appeal from an award of the Full Industrial Board of Indiana denying him compensation.
Appellant's brief was filed in this court on February 29, 1956. Appellee, on April 2, 1956, filed its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, affirm for the reason appellant's brief does not comply with Rule 2-17, Rules of the Supreme Court in each of the following particulars:
1. The date of the filing of appellant's application, the designation of a party defendant and the issues created thereby have been omitted; the substance of the appellant's application for an award is not set out.
2. The findings and award of the Hearing Member have been omitted but for the ultimate result in the award.
3. It cannot be determined whether the prayer for review by the full Board was filed timely.
4. There is no record of the filing in the Appellate Court of an assignment of errors and whether or not it was timely filed.
5. There is no showing that a bill of exceptions was approved and made a part of the record. No reference is made to the filing of a bill of exceptions.
An examination of appellant's brief discloses it does not conform to the Rules. Since the filing of appellee's motion appellant has not sought permission to cure the defects therein pointed out. Therefore, no question is presented. Waters v. Perfect Circle Corporation, 1953, 124 Ind.App. 70, 114 N.E.2d 436.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Brown
... ... James F. Griggs, Franklin, for appellees ... ...
-
Bewley v. State, 30531
...Wright v. State (1959), 237 Ind. 593, 147 N.E.2d 551; Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537; Bennett v. James H. Drew Corporation (1956), 126 Ind.App. 557, 133 N.E.2d 886. This cause, however, must be reversed on two grounds which are properly present for review. We consider bot......
-
Coats v. Clanin, 18950
...question is presented. Mendenhall v. Mendenhall, 1955, 125 Ind.App. 519, 124 N.E.2d 873 (Transfer denied); Bennett v. James H. Drew Corporation, 1956, 126 Ind.App. 557, 133 N.E.2d 886; Waters v. Perfect Circle Corporation, 1953, 124 Ind.App. 70, 114 N.E.2d 436; Hughes v. State Bank of West ......
-
Ziegler v. Burks, 20493
...errors, no question is presented to this court and the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed. Bennett v. Jomes H. Drew Corp. (1956), 126 Ind.App. 557, 133 N.E.2d 886; Evans v. Pope (1957), 127 Ind.App. 386, 141 N.E.2d 924; Justice v. Tripp (1959), 130 Ind.App. 187, 158 N.E.2d As it......