Home Owner's Loan Corp. v. Hornyak
| Decision Date | 11 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 27786.,27786. |
| Citation | 220 Ind. 487,44 N.E.2d 89 |
| Parties | HOME OWNER'S LOAN CORPORATION v. HORNYAK et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by the Home Owner's Loan Corporation against Andrew Hornyak and another and the Holland Furnace Company to foreclose a mortgage wherein last named defendant filed a cross-complaint. Judgment of foreclosure and plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, and case was transferred from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court under Burns' Ann.St. 4-215.
Affirmed.
Superseding opinion of Appellate Court in 40 N.E.2d 1014.Appeal from Superior Court, St. Joseph County; J. Fred Bingham, judge.
Vernon R. Helmen, of South Bend, and Walter W. Houppert, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Hammerchmidt & Johnson, of South Bend, for appellees.
Appellant, by this action, sought to foreclose its mortgage on real estate owned by appellee Hornyak. The Holland Furnace Company was made a party defendant because of a lien of a conditional sales contract entered into between appellee Victoria Hornyak, and the Holland Furnace Company, for the purchase of a hot-air furnace which was installed within the mortgaged premises. The purchase, the installation of the furnace, and the recording of the conditional sales contract were subsequent to the execution and recording of appellant's mortgage.
It is recited in appellant's brief that the court found in favor of plaintiff as against the defendants, Hornyak and Hornyak, and decreed the foreclosure of the mortgage as to them, but also found for the defendant, Holland Furnace Company, on its cross complaint, granting it the right to remove the furnace from the mortgaged premises in satisfaction of the unpaid balance due on its contract.
We are confronted, at the outset, with appellee's contention that appellant's brief presents no question for our consideration. An examination of appellant's brief as to its sufficiency discloses serious defects. We find that the judgment of the trial court has been omitted entirely, and no reference to the page in the transcript is made. The next defect observed is, that neither appellant's motion for a new trial, nor the substance thereof is set out anywhere in its brief, and no reference as to where it may be found in the transcript is set out; yet, the only error relied upon for reversal is the overruling of its motion for a new trial.
Appellant omits altogether a condensed recital of the evidence. Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial