Loeser v. Goldberg

• Decision Date: 29 September 1932
• Docket Number: No. 14386.,14386.
• Citation: 95 Ind.App. 52,182 N.E. 462
• Parties: LOESER et al. v. GOLDBERG et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

95 Ind.App. 52

182 N.E. 462

LOESER et al.

v.GOLDBERG et al.

No. 14386.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

Sept. 29, 1932.

Appeal from Superior Court, Vigo County; Henry Adamson, Special Judge.

Action to quiet title by Hubert Loeser and others against Louis J. Goldberg and others, in which defendants cross-complained. From the judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Chester Y. Kelly and Miller & Causey, all of Terre Haute, for appellants.

Piety & Piety and John W. Gerdink, all of Terre Haute, for appellees.

BRIDWELL, J.

Appellants instituted this action against appellees to quiet title to certain real estate in Vigo county, Ind., of which they claim ownership under the will of one Jennie Goldberg, deceased. Upon the trial of the cause there was a finding and judgment for the appellees, and this appeal followed.

[1] Appellees insist that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed because appellant's brief does not comply with clause 5 of rule 22 of the rules of this court, and assert that the rules of court are binding, not only on litigants, but also upon this court. We must agree with this last contention. Earl v. State (1926) 197 Ind. 703, 151 N. E. 3.

[2] The assignment of errors contains thirteen specifications as follows: (1) The court erred in overruling appellants' motion for new trial; (2) the judgment appealed from is not fairly supported by the stipulated evidence; (3) the decision of the court is not fairly supported by the stipulated evidence; (4) the judgment appealed from is clearly against the weight of the stipulated evidence; (5) the decision of the court is clearly against the weight of the stipulated evidence; (6) the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (7) the finding of the court is contrary to law; (8) the judgment of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (9) the judgment of the court is contrary to law; (10) the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (11) the decision of the court is contrary to law; (12) the action of the court in overruling appellants' demurrer to appellees' (Louis J. Goldberg, Moses B. Goldberg, and Henry Goldberg) cross-complaint; (13) the action of the court in overruling appellants' demurrer to appellee's (Phœnix Building Loan & Savings Association) fourth paragraph of cross-complaint.

No error assigned by specifications 2 to 11, inclusive, is a proper independent assignment of error. Partlow v. Mitchell (1919) 69 Ind. App. 505, 122 N. E. 340.

[3] Appellants' brief under “Points and Authorities” has but one “heading” as follows: “The finding of the court and the judgment is contrary to law and is not sustained by sufficient evidence.” Under this heading then appear separately numbered statements of the contentions...