Pope v. Huffman, 20640
| Decision Date | 25 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 20640,20640,2 |
| Citation | 228 N.E.2d 886,141 Ind.App. 455 |
| Parties | Denman C. POPE, Appellant, v. Alma HUFFMAN, Appellee |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Robert H. Duffy, Terre Haute, for appellant.
Taylor & Taylor, George E. Taylor, John S. Brumfield, Sullivan, for appellee.
This is an action brought in the Sullivan Circuit Court by the plaintiff-appellee, Alma Huffman, against defendants, Edgar C. Pope, Denman C. Pope, City of Sullivan and Mary Walters, Treasurer of Sullivan County, to seek a judgment on a promissory note executed by the defendants, Edgar C. Pope and Denman C. Pope, and for foreclosure of plaintiff's mortgage on real estate and personal property, and for the appointment of a Receiver to operate the premises known as Pope Motor Court.
Defendant, Denman C. Pope, filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint therein admitting the execution of the note and mortgage, but denying the allegations of default, or that the property was in poor condition, or that he was delinquent relative to insurance on the property.
Following a motion by defendant, Denman C. Pope, for a change of venue from the regular Judge of the Sullivan Circuit Court, the Honorable Lester Nixon was selected as Special Judge to hear said cause.
Plaintiff's prayer for appointment of a Receiver, filed August 10, 1965, was denied by an order of court entered August 16, 1965.
The issues were whether the conditions of the mortgage had been breached, and if so, what the penalty should be. Trial was to the Court without the intervention of a jury.
The findings of the Court were:
'1. Defendant breached provisions of the mortgage by:
a. Failing to pay the mortgage installment due May, 1965.
b. Failing to pay sewer tax assessments.
c. Failing to pay spring real and personal taxes due in May 1965.
d. Allowing insurance to lapse.
Judgment was entered for plaintiff-appellee against the defendants, Edgar C. Pope and Denman C. Pope, for $28,426.72, together with interest at 8% per annum from May 24, 1965, in the sum of $1,692.97, and attorney fees in an amount of $1,500.00 with costs. The Court further decreed that the mortgage held by plaintiff was a first mortgage on the property covered by it, and that said mortgage be foreclosed. The Court ordered that money paid on arrearages by defendant, Denman C. Pope, to the Clerk, should be returned to him.
Defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging that the decision of the Court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law. This motion was overruled and said act constitutes appellant's sole assignment of error.
In the argument portion of his brief, appellant limits his discussion of the nature of the action, and the only citation of authority given in his argument was when he states:
This case is hardly in point and may be distinguished from the case at bar. In the Loomis case, supra, an agreement had been entered into, to a time certain, before a foreclosure would be filed. Appellee in that case brought an action in foreclosure prior to the extended time specified in the agreement, nevertheless the trial Court found for the appellee. The Supreme Court reversed and said, 'The plaintiff does not come into court with clean hands.'
We have no comparable situation in the case at bar.
With the exception of the case of Loomis, supra, appellant cites no authority in the argument portion of his brief but gave a sort recital of the evidence.
We quote applicable portions from Rule 2--17, (e), (g), (h) and (i) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, as follows:
'(e) It shall be unnecessary to set out the entire record or the bill of exceptions with the evidence in the brief in a separate section thereof. In lieu thereof, the appellant shall set forth a summary of the evidence and the record which he believes to be pertinent to the issues involved in the initial portion of the argument section of the brief, with specific reference to the line and page in the transcript where such evidence may be found or the pleadings or other paper may be found.
'(g) The argument section of the brief shall be preceded by a brief summary of the argument without citation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coney v. Farmers State Bank
...112 N.E.2d 751; Simpson v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Sec. Div. (1967), 141 Ind.App. 467, 229 N.E.2d 740; Pope v. Huffman (1967), 141 Ind.App. 455, 228 N.E.2d 886; Yuhas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Sec. Div. (1969), Ind.App., 252 N.E.2d For all of the above and foregoing r......
-
Yuhas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...must be supported by both reason and authority. Kampo Transit Inc. v. Powers (1965) 138 Ind.App. 141, 211 N.E.2d 781; Pope v. Huffman (1967) Ind.App., 228 N.E.2d 886; Gilson v. City of Anderson (1967) Ind.App., 226 N.E.2d 921; Monarch Buick Co. v. Kennedy (1965) 138 Ind.App. 1, 209 N.E.2d A......
-
Thonert v. Daenell, 770A119
...112 N.E.2d 751; Simpson v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Sec. Div. (1967), 141 Ind.App. 467, 229 N.E.2d 740; Pope v. Huffman (1967), 141 Ind.App. 455, 228 N.E.2d 886; Yuhas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Sec. Div. (1969), Ind.App., 252 N.E.2d 254. While these cases were decided ......
- Bielat v. Folta