Fort Wayne Mercantile Accident Association v. Scott
| Decision Date | 25 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 10,467 |
| Citation | 123 N.E. 718,71 Ind.App. 266 |
| Parties | FORT WAYNE MERCANTILE ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION v. SCOTT |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Motion to reinstate denied October 31, 1919, Reported at: 71 Ind.App. 266 at 269.
From Allen Superior Court; Carl Yaple, Judge.
Action by John E. Scott against the Fort Wayne Mercantile Accident Association. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
O. E Fuelber, for appellant.
Leonard Rose & Zollars and Shirts & Fertig, for appellee.
The appellee commenced this action to recover upon a certificate of membership in appellant association insuring him against accidents. Appellant filed a plea in abatement, to which a demurrer was sustained. The issues being closed by the filing of an answer and reply, the cause was tried by a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for appellee.
Appellant filed a motion for a new trial for the reasons: (1) That the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the plea in abatement; (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) that the court erred in giving certain instructions; (7) that the court erred in refusing to give a certain instruction; (8) that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (9) that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law; (10) that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence; (11) that the amount of recovery is erroneous, being too large and (12) that the court erred in admitting certain evidence.
The errors assigned are the sustaining of the demurrer to the plea in abatement and the overruling of the motion for a new trial.
The appellee, in April of this year, filed his motion, supported by brief, asking that the appeal be dismissed. The reasons set out in the motion are: That appellant has failed to show that it reserved any exception to any ruling or action of the trial court; that the complaint is not set out in the brief; that no showing is made as to when the judgment was rendered or when the motion for a new trial was filed; that it does not appear that the motion for a new trial was ever ruled on; that the instructions are not in the record; that the evidence is not in the record; and that there is no condensed statement of the evidence in narrative form in appellant's brief, as required by Rule 22 of this court.
Although appellant was given notice in April of the filing of this motion to dismiss, it has taken...
To continue reading
Request your trial