Poore v. Poore, 18595

Decision Date15 April 1955
Docket NumberNo. 18595,18595
Citation125 N.E.2d 810,125 Ind.App. 392
PartiesRoy B. POORE, Appellant, v. Mildred D. POORE, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

George H. Gossman, Seymour, Edward J. Morrison, Columbus, for appellant.

Thomas H. Branaman, Bruce Markel, Jr., Brownstown, for appellee.

BOWEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment in an action brought by appellee against the appellant for an absolute divorce. Issues were joined by the appellee's complaint alleging cruel and inhuman treatment, and the answer of appellant thereto. Trial was had by the court and judgment was rendered granting appellee an absolute divorce.

Errors assigned for reversal, and not expressly waived by appellant, are that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, and that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial based upon the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence and that the decision of the court is contrary to law.

From an examination of the briefs filed by the appellant herein it appears that appellant has stated a number of abstract propositions of law with reference to public policy, the doctrine of recrimination and of comparative rectitude, and urges that the evidence leads inescapably to the conclusion that both parties were entitled to a divorce, and that therefore neither should have been granted a divorce. Such abstract propositions of law are not applied to the issues in the instant case nor to any rulings of the trial court, nor does the brief contain, under the heading 'Argument', a specification of such of the assigned errors which are intended to be urged by the abstract propositions of law which are set out, and therefore, as to such matters, the appellant's brief does not comply with Rule 2-17 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts. By a long line of decisions of this court and the Supreme Court, it is well settled that the stating of an abstract proposition of law, and the failure to apply such proposition of law to the facts in issue under the assigned errors, is a waiver of the claimed error. Waggoner v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 269, 85 N.E.2d 642; Ogle v. State, 1912, 178 Ind. 672, 100 N.E. 5; Tow v. State, 1926, 198 Ind. 253, 151 N.E. 697; Carlin v. State, 1933, 204 Ind. 644, 184 N.E. 543; Winters v. State, 1926, 199 Ind. 719, 154 N.E. 478; Bleiweiss v. State, 1918, 188 Ind. 184, 119 N.E. 375, 122 N.E. 577; McCord v. Strader, 1949, 227 Ind. 389, 86 N.E.2d 441; Sichick v. State, 1929, 89 Ind.App. 132, 166 N.E. 14. The Rules of the Supreme and Appellate Courts have the force and effect of law. Ross v. Clore, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 548, 74 N.E.2d 747; Yiatros v. Cole, 1946, 117 Ind.App. 19, 68 N.E.2d 657. Therefore, since such general propositions of law asserted in appellant's brief are not applied nor related to any particular specification of error, no question is presented as to such abstract proposition of law....

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Notter v. Beasley
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 27, 1960
    ...brief what particular question or objection is in issue. Sinks, Taylor v. State, 1956, 235 Ind. 484, 133 N.E.2d 563; Poore v. Poore, 1955, 125 Ind.App. 392, 125 N.E.2d 810. We are inclined to agree with appellee with respect to claimed error in the admission of testimony not specifically se......
  • Burk v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 2, 1964
    ...burden is upon the appellant to demonstrate reversible error. Wright v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 593, 147 N.E.2d 551; Poore v. Poore (1955), 125 Ind.App. 392, 125 N.E.2d 810; O'Neal v. Deveny (1963), Ind.App., 194 N.E.2d It is our opinion that the appellant has failed to meet the above requir......
  • Parsley v. Koch, 19042
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 15, 1959
    ...Rule 2-17(f).' (Our emphasis.) Wright v. State of Indiana, 1958, 237 Ind. 593, 595, 147 N.E.2d 551, 552. See also Poore v. Poore, 1955, 125 Ind.App. 392, 394, 125 N.E.2d 810. Appellant's argument in this case does not 'affirmatively' show harmful error but simply casts before this court cer......
  • Glenn v. Thatcher Glass Mfg. Co., 20058
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • September 8, 1965
    ...Rule 2-17(f).' (Our emphasis) Wright v. State of Indiana, 1958, 237 Ind. 593, 595, 147 N.E.2d 551, 552. See also Poore v. Poore, 1955, 125 Ind.App. 392, 394, 125 N.E.2d 810. Appellant's argument in this case does not 'affirmatively' show harmful error but simply casts before this court cert......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT