Hughes v. State Bank of West Terre Haute, 18463
| Decision Date | 25 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18463,18463 |
| Citation | 124 Ind.App. 511,117 N.E.2d 563 |
| Parties | HUGHES et ux. v. STATE BANK OF WEST TERRE HAUTE et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John J. Thomas, Brazil, Stump & Emshwiller, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Dix, Dix, Patrick, Ratcliffe & Nunn, Terre Haute, Eugene Weaver, Brazil, for appellee State Bank of West Terre Haute.
Appellee The State Bank of West Terre Haute brought this action against appellants and the appellees Shake to reform and foreclose a certain mortgage on farm land in Clay County. (Hereinafter the term 'appellee' will refer to said Bank.) Trial to the court resulted in finding and judgment for appellee.
At the outstart we are confronted by the fact that appellants have not set out in their brief the assignment of error in this court, as required by Rule 2-17(e), Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana. In the argument portion of their brief they say the argument is applied to both specifications of the motion for a new trial--that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. But nowhere in their brief is it stated that the assignment of errors here challenged the overruling of their motion for a new trial.
Because of the failure to set out at least the substance of the assignment of errors in appellants' brief, no question is presented. McBride v. State ex rel. McKinley, 1933, 97 Ind.App. 305, 186 N.E. 388; Milburn v. Waggoner, 1932, 94 Ind.App. 247, 250, 180 N.E. 606.
While we prefer to decide cases on their merits we may not do so when the appellant fails to comply with the Rules of the Supreme Court in the preparation of his brief. The Rules are binding on the courts as well as the litigants. In this case our regret in having to base our decision on this ground is mitigated by the fact that, in the opinion of a majority of this court, from what we heard in oral argument and a reading of the briefs, we believe the judgment would have to be affirmed if considered on the merits.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Indianapolis, 18997
...their position, cite the case of Williams v. Williams, 1953, 123 Ind.App. 495, 112 N.E.2d 305, and Hughes et al. v. State Bank of West Terre Haute, 1954, 124 Ind.App. 511, 117 N.E.2d 563. These were cases where there were flagrant violations of Rule 2-17(e). In the Williams case appellants'......
-
Hayes v. Pennick
...which the rules seek to avoid. When there has been such an omission, the judgment will be affirmed.' Hughes v. State Bank of W. Terre Haute (1954), 124 Ind.App. 511, 512, 117 N.E.2d 563; Williams v. Williams (1953), 123 Ind.App. 495, 112 N.E.2d 305; Witte v. Witte (1953), 123 Ind.App. 644, ......
-
Stephens v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...established that the Rules of the Supreme Court are binding on the courts as well as the litigants; Hughes et al. v. St. Bank of W. Terre Haute (1954) 124 Ind.App. 511, 512, 117 N.E.2d 563 (Transfer denied); and have the force and effect of law. Mendenhall, Extr. v. Mendenhall (1955) 125 In......
-
Turner v. Williams, 20287
...that the Rules of the Supreme Court are binding on the courts as well as the litigants; Hughes et al. v. State Bank of West Terre Haute (1954), 124 Ind.App. 511, 512, 117 N.E.2d 536 (Transfer denied); and have the force and effect of law. Mendenhall, Extr. v. Mendenhall (1955), 125 Ind.App.......