Liberal Life Assur. Co. of Indiana v. Cook

• Decision Date: 07 February 1918
• Docket Number: No. 9507.,9507.
• Parties: LIBERAL LIFE ASSUR. CO. OF INDIANA et al. v. COOK.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

66 Ind.App. 599

118 N.E. 586

LIBERAL LIFE ASSUR. CO. OF INDIANA et al.

v.COOK.

No. 9507.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Feb. 7, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Luther F. Pence, Judge.

Action by Benjamin H. Cook against the Liberal Life Assurance Company of Indiana and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Jones & Ball, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Albert H. Vestal, of Anderson, for appellee.

FELT, J.

This is a suit by appellee to recover for his services as medical examiner for appellants.

The complaint in one paragraph alleges, in substance, that appellee, on August 11, 1911, was employed by the Liberal Life Insurance Company of Indiana, and that the business of that company was taken over by its co-appellant, Liberal Life Assurance Company of Indiana, which company assumed and agreed to carry out the contracts of the former company; that appellee was duly appointed medical examiner for appellants for the county of Madison, state of Indiana, and appellants agreed to pay him for his services the sum of $60 per month, payable on the first day of each month; that he entered upon his employment and served continuously from the date aforesaid to April 14, 1914; that appellants accepted his services in pursuance of such employment and are indebted to him therefor in the sum of $1,200.

Each of the appellants answered the complaint by a general denial and by a plea of payment. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for appellee in the sum of $1,106.80. Appellee entered a remittitur of $195.43, appellants'separate motions for a new trial were overruled, judgment was rendered on the verdict for the full amount less the sum remitted, and this appeal taken.

[1] Appellants have separately assigned several alleged errors, but have waived all of them by failure to present them in their briefs, unless it be the assignment that the court erred in overruling the motions for a new trial.

Appellee earnestly contends that no questions are presented by the briefs because of failure to comply with the rules of the court in the preparation thereof; that under their points and authorities appellants have stated only abstract propositions of law and have not applied them to any particular assignment of error or to any definite question which is shown to arise under any assignment of error; that points not definitely raised and presented in the original briefs of an appellant cannot be presented in its reply brief.

In the main, appellee's contentions are sustained by the authorities. It is a mere matter of conjecture or speculation as to what particular error or errors the propositions of law stated are...