Mustafov v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 125 Ind.App. 388,125 N.E.2d 824
• Decision Date: 15 April 1955
• Docket Number: No. 18634,18634
• Parties: Sadlye MUSTAFOV, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 824

125 N.E.2d 824

125 Ind.App. 388

Sadlye MUSTAFOV, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 18634.

Appellate Court of Indiana, In Banc.

April 15, 1955.

William Belshaw, Benedict R. Danko, Whiting, Green, Powers & Belshaw, Whiting, of counsel, for appellant.

Charles G. Bomberger, Hammond, Bomberger, Morthland & Royce, Hammond, of counsel, for appellee.

PFAFF, Judge.

Appellant brought this action against appellee to collect the proceeds of a certain life insurance policy issued on the life of one Jim Allie, deceased. Her complaint averred she was the wife of said decedent and entitled to said proceeds under the provision of the policy. Trial to the court resulted in finding and judgment in favor of appellee.

The error relied upon by appellant for reversal is, that the court erred in overruling her motion for a new trial.

Appellant's motion for a new trial contains sixteen specifications of error.

Specification No. 1 charging insufficiency of the evidence is unavailable, because the decision was adverse to the appellant who had the burden of proof. Granger's Estate v. Gosport Cemetery Association, Ind.App.1954, 118 N.E.2d 386 (Transfer denied).

Specifications 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 are expressly waived by the appellant.

Specification No. 3 charges that the court erred 'in failing to take judicial notice' of certain estate proceedings of which the court has cognizance. The specification is too broad, indefinite and general to present any question. It refers to no specific ruling or action by the court which is claimed to be erroneous, nor does it exemplify how the issues were raised, whether by motion, by rejection of offered evidence, or by some other manner or procedure.

Specifications 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 predicate error on the refusal of the court to permit certain named witnesses to testify concerning specified matters. Each of these specifications is insufficient to present the asserted error for review. The questions put to the witnesses, the objections made thereto, the rulings of the court thereon, and the offer to prove, if any, are not set forth in said motion. Therefore, no question is presented as to these specifications. Fuehring v. Union Trust Co. of Indianapolis, 1946, 117 Ind.App. 246, 248, 249, 69 N.E.2d 141; Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. v. Wilkins, 1932, 96 Ind.App. 231, 182 N.E. 252.

Specification No. 15 complains of the admission and reading into evidence of a deposition taken by appellee over the objection to the materiality and relevancy of the exhibits incorporated therein. The deposition referred to is unidentified. The objectionable exhibits are unidentified either by copy or in substance, and the objection to the deposition is not set out either by copy or in substance. If error is based upon the erroneous admission in evidence of an exhibit, a copy or the substance of the exhibit must be contained in the motion for a new trial. Flanagan, Wiltrout & Hamilton, Indiana Trial & Appellate Practice, § 1977, p. 480; Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. v. Wilkins, supra. This specification presents no question.

Specification No. 16 asserts error in admitting certain exhibits in evidence over appellant's objections. What such exhibits purported to be or the grounds of objection are not disclosed. This specification is subject to the same infirmities as are pointed out above with reference to Specification No. 15, and is inadequate to present any question for review.

The only undisposed-of specification in appellant's motion for a new trial is specification No. 2,...