Rook v. Straus Bros. Co.
| Citation | 110 N.E. 1006,60 Ind.App. 381 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 8924.,8924. |
| Parties | ROOK et al. v. STRAUS BROS. CO. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Adams County; Chas. E. Sturgis, Special Judge.
Action between the Straus Bros. Company and Rhoda C. Rook and others. From a judgment for the former, the latter appeal. Affirmed.
See, also, 107 N. E. 692.
John F. La Follette, Emerson McGriff, and S. A. D. Whipple, all of Portland, for appellants. Hooper & Lenhart and Heller, Sutton & Heller, all of Decatur, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment quieting the title to certain real estate. There was a special finding of facts on which the trial court stated its conclusions of law. The errors assigned seek to bring into review the action of the court in ruling on the demurrer to the complaint, in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, and in its conclusions of law stated on the special finding of facts.
It is insisted by appellee that no questions are presented because of defects in the transcript, in the assignment of errors, and in the preparation of appellants' briefs. Our examination of the record and assignment of errors convinces us that there is much merit in many of the objections urged by appellee, but it is unnecessary for us to determine the questions other than those relating to the briefs.
[1][2][3] It devolves upon the appellants to present to the court the error relied upon for reversal of the judgment, and to do so in substantial compliance with the rules of the court. Under “Points and Authorities” appellants state numerous abstract propositions of law, but neither here nor at any other place in their briefs do they make any specific application of any of such points to any particular question rising under any one of the alleged errors relied on for reversal of the judgment. Appellee in its brief filed in July, 1914, duly pointed out the defects, and appellants have taken no steps to obtain leave to amend their briefs, or to in any way remedy the defects. The rules are binding on the court as well as upon the litigants, and there must be a substantial compliance therewith before this court can assume to pass upon the merits of the appeal. Clause 5 of rule 22 (55 N. E. vi) provides that:
“The briefs shall contain, under a separate heading of each error relied on, separately numbered propositions or points, stated concisely and without argument or elaboration, together with the authorities...
To continue reading
Request your trial