Hauser v. Markwell

• Decision Date: 08 May 1942
• Docket Number: No. 16867.,16867.
• Citation: 111 Ind.App. 420,41 N.E.2d 652
• Parties: HAUSER et al. v. MARKWELL.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

111 Ind.App. 420

41 N.E.2d 652

HAUSER et al.

v.MARKWELL.

No. 16867.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

May 8, 1942.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Owen County; John W. Baumunk, Judge.

Action by Netta B. Markwell against Clarence E. Hauser and others to reform a contract for sale of realty and recover possession thereof and damages for its unlawful detention, in which defendants filed a cross-complaint. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

John W. Lindley, of Sullivan, for appellants.

Willis Hickam, of Spencer, for appellee.

DeVOSS, Chief Judge.

Appellee, Netta B. Markwell, filed her complaint in two paragraphs against appellants Clarence E. Hauser, Hazel Hauser, and Kenneth Porter to reform a written contract for the sale of real estate, for possession thereof, and for damages for the unlawful detention thereof. To this complaint the appellants Clarence E. Hauser and Hazel Hauser entered their separate appearances and filed a plea in abatement of said cause as to them. A demurrer to the plea in abatement was sustained by the court. Thereafter, appellants filed a separate demurrer to each paragraph of the complaint, which demurrer to the first paragraph of the complaint was sustained, and overruled as to the second paragraph. Appellants filed their separate answer to the second paragraph of complaint, to which answer appellee filed her reply.

Appellants' brief does not disclose the filing of a cross complaint by any of the appellants, however, that fact is established by the court in its conclusions of law.

There was a trial upon the issues by the court. Upon the request of the appellants, the court made a special finding of facts and stated conclusions of law thereon.

Motion for a new trial was filed by appellants, which was overruled, and this appeal followed.

Appellee herein filed her motion to dismiss this appeal, and sets out many reasons therefor, among which is the noncompliance by appellants with the requirements of rule 2-17 of the rules of this court. One of the provisions of the above rule is as follows: “The brief of appellant shall contain short and clear statements disclosing * * * (c) How the issues were decided and what the judgment or decree was.”

The only reference to the judgment rendered in this cause appearing in appellants brief is, “and the court rendered judgment on the conclusions of law against appellant.” No reference is made in the brief to pages and lines in the record where the judgment may be found. It is noted that there are three appellants in this cause, and this court is left to conjecture or to presume what the judgment was and whom the judgment was against, unless we search the record for ourselves.

[1][2] It has been held many times by this court that this rule must be substantially observed in order to...