In re Garterman
| Decision Date | 28 March 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 15046.,15046. |
| Citation | 100 Ind.App. 180,194 N.E. 774 |
| Parties | Petition of GARTERMAN et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Ripley Circuit Court; Frank Gardner, Judge.
Petition of George J. Garterman and Mary C. Garterman, for the adoption of Ervin Henry Garterman. From a judgment denying the petition, petitioners appeal.
Affirmed.
Marsh R. Alexander, of Brookville, for appellants.
Wycoff & Wycoff, of Batesville, for appellee.
Appellants George J. Garterman and Marie C. Garterman, husband and wife, filed a joint petition for the adoption of Ervin Henry Garterman, their deceased son's infant child. A hearing having been had, the court found against appellants and denied their petition. Thereupon appellants filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and this appeal was perfected.
[1] The assignment of errors contains fourteen alleged errors. Assigned errors numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are each based on the court's rulings on admission or rejection of evidence. Such rulings are not proper bases for independent assignments of error, but are reviewable by this court only when set up in the motion for new trial, as causes therefor. Barker v. Central Bldg. & Loan Ass'n (1932) 94 Ind. App. 661, 182 N. E. 90.
[2] Assigned error No. 14 is as follows: “The court below erred in its findings on all of the evidence given in said cause.” That assignment presents no question. See section 610, Burns' 1926.
The only error properly assigned is assigned error No. 13 which alleges that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for new trial.
[3] The causes for new trial alleged in the motion therefor are, first, the “finding” is not sustained by sufficient evidence; second, the “finding” is contrary to law.
Appellants' brief does not contain a “Points and Authorities” section. Under the heading “Errors Assigned and Relied upon for Reversal,” appellants' brief sets forth several “points” in support of the contention that the “ruling” of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, but each of said “points” is merely an abstract statement of law followed by citations of authorities. No application whatever is made of said statements of law to the instant case. Therefore, we hold that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision is not presented. Crawfordsville Trust Co. v. Burke (1931) 92 Ind. App. 558, 157 N. E. 6, 158 N. E. 493.
[4] The second...
To continue reading
Request your trial