Griffith v. Felts

• Decision Date: 08 October 1912
• Docket Number: No. 7,717.,7,717.
• Citation: 52 Ind.App. 268,99 N.E. 432
• Parties: GRIFFITH v. FELTS et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

52 Ind.App. 268

99 N.E. 432

GRIFFITH

v.FELTS et al.

No. 7,717.¹

Appellate Court of Indiana.

Oct. 8, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Whitley County; Joseph W. Adair, Judge.

Action by Louise E. Griffith against Frank E. Felts and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Lesh & Lesh, of Huntington, and W. F. McNagny, of Columbia City, for appellant. Eichhorn & Vaughn, of Bluffton, and Bowers & Feightner, of Huntington, for appellees.

FELT, J.

This is an action to quiet title to and obtain possession of real estate.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court, on motion of appellees, defendants below, instructed the jury to find for the defendants. The jury returned their verdict in accordance with the instruction, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict, from which this appeal was taken.

[1] Under the established rules of this and our Supreme Court, the judgment must be affirmed for the failure of appellant to set out in her brief the errors relied upon for reversal. The brief wholly fails in this respect, and does not inform the court, except by inference, that any assignment of errors is in the record. The rule is definite and clear, and has the force and effect of law, binding alike upon litigant and the court. Schrader et al. v. Meyer et al., 95 N. E. 335;King et al. v. State ex rel., 47 Ind. App. 595, 93 N. E. 1082;Albaugh Bros. et al. v. Lynas et al., 47 Ind. App. 30-33, 93 N. E. 678;Ferdinand Railway Co. v. Bretz, 47 Ind. App. 642, 94 N. E. 1046;Magnuson v. Billings, 152 Ind. 177-180, 52 N. E. 803;American Fidelity Co. v. Indianapolis M. & F. Co. (Sup.) 98 N. E. 709;Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Newkirk, 48 Ind. App. 349, 93 N. E. 860.

It does appear, however, from appellant's brief that the relief prayed for depends upon proof that a deed, executed by the father of appellant's husband and placed in escrow, to be delivered to appellant's late husband, now deceased, upon the death of the grantor, was, after being placed in escrow, and before delivery to the grantee, altered by the insertion therein of a clause which changed the title conveyed from a fee-simple to a life estate. Neither the evidence set out in appellant's brief as admitted, nor that alleged to have been erroneously excluded by the court, tends to prove that the deed, when placed of record, was not in the identical form and condition that it was in when signed and acknowledged by the grantor, nor that it was altered in any respect by any person. On the issues as disclosed by appellant's brief, it appears...