King v. State ex rel. Halbert Tp.

• Citation: 47 Ind.App. 595,93 N.E. 1082
• Decision Date: 17 February 1911
• Docket Number: No. 7,196.,7,196.
• Parties: KING et al. v. STATE ex rel. HALBERT TP.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

47 Ind.App. 595

93 N.E. 1082

KING et al.

v.STATE ex rel. HALBERT TP.

No. 7,196.¹

Appellate Court of Indiana.

Feb. 17, 1911.

In Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; C. K. Tharp, Special Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of Halbert Township against Carl C. King and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.Padgett & Padgett and Hiram McCormick, for appellants. Frank E. Gilkinson and Fabius Gwin, for appellee.

ADAMS, J.

This action was brought by the state on the relation of Halbert township, Martin county, Ind., against Carl C. King and others for an alleged breach of a gravel road contractor's bond.

Rule 22 of the Supreme Court and this court (55 N. E. v) is as follows: “The brief of appellant shall contain a short and clear statement disclosing: First. The nature of the action. Second. What the issues were. Third. How the issues were decided, and what the judgment or decree was. Fourth. The errors relied upon for reversal. Fifth. A concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents every error and exception relied on. ***”

It has been so often held that a substantial compliance with the rules above set out is necessary, and the principle is now so well established, that a citation of authorities would add nothing to this opinion.

The appellants' brief, under the head of “Issues,” shows that the appellant demurred to the amended complaint for want of sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, and that the court overruled the demurrer, to which ruling the appellants excepted. It is shown under the head of “Points” that “the complaint is questioned by assignment of error and was also questioned in the court below by demurrer.” Under the head of “How the Issues were Determined,” the brief shows that “appellants filed a written motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and they excepted.” No other reference is made in the brief to the motion for a new trial. A number of instructions given, and refused, are set out under “Points,” with the statement that the giving, or refusal to give, each was error.

We do not consider this a compliance with the most reasonable interpretation of the rules of this court in the matter of preparing appellant's brief. In order to facilitate the work of the court and secure the prompt and orderly dispatch of business, it is necessary to uniformly enforce the rules. No rule is more important than the one which requires appellant to set out in...