State ex rel. Heflin v. Hinds, School Trustee
| Decision Date | 29 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | 25,745 |
| Citation | 165 N.E. 754,200 Ind. 613 |
| Parties | State of Indiana, ex rel. Heflin et al. v. Hinds, School Trustee, et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. APPEAL---Briefs---Admission of Evidence---Court's Ruling and Exception Thereto Must be Shown.---No question is presented on appeal as to the admission of evidence where appellant's brief does not show the court's ruling on his objection to the admission of such evidence or that any exception was reserved to such ruling; the same rule applies where appellant objected to the admission of an exhibit, but the exhibit is not set out in his brief. p. 614.
2. APPEAL---Briefs---Sufficiency---Failure to Comply with Rule 22---Concise Statement of the Record.---Where appellant's brief does not comply with the provision of cl. 5, Rule 22 of the Supreme Court, which requires appellant to set out in his brief a concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents every error and exception relied on, and the appellate tribunal is obliged to search the transcript on behalf of the appellant to get a satisfactory concept of the errors relied on, no question is presented for review. p 615.
3. APPEAL---Briefs---Sufficiency---"Points" in Appellant's Brief---Must be Addressed to Specific Errors.---Where the only error assigned on appeal is the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and the "points" in appellant's brief are not addressed to any specific error and no one of the points of law refers to the grounds for a new trial stated in the motion therefor there was not a substantial compliance with the rules of court relating to the making of briefs. p. 615.
4. APPEAL---Briefs---Sufficiency---Propositions of Law---Application to Specific Errors---Duty of Attorneys.---The propositions of law in appellant's brief must be applied specifically to the errors to which they relate, and this is an indispensable duty of the attorneys in the preparation of briefs, to the end that "justice shall be administered... speedily and without delay." p. 616.
From Tipton Circuit Court; Brenton Devol, Special Judge.
Action of mandate on the relation of Joseph Heflin and others against Samuel J. Hinds, trustee of Madison School Township Tipton County, and others. From a judgment for defendants the relators appeal.
Affirmed.
Gifford & Gifford and Jesse R. Coleman, for appellants.
J. F. Pyke, Wolf & Barnes, C. W. Roll and George B. Shenk, for appellees.
This is an action by relators to mandate defendants (appellees upon appeal) to proceed with the sale of bonds and to construct a school building.
The finding of the court to which the cause was tried is in favor of the defendants and against relators. Judgment was rendered upon the finding "that mandate should not issue."
Relators' motion for a new trial was overruled, which ruling is the only error assigned upon appeal.
The motion for a new trial alleges seven causes, the first four of which are based upon the admission of oral evidence; the fifth upon admission of an exhibit in evidence; the sixth, that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence; and the seventh, that the decision is contrary to law.
The brief does not disclose the ruling made by the court which concerns the causes Nos. 1, 3 and 4, for a new trial, or that appellant excepted to a ruling, if any was made. The second cause for a new trial is based upon the court's ruling which sustained defendant's objection to relator's question to their witness, but relator did not except to the ruling. The brief shows relator's objection to a question by defendants to their witness, but it is not disclosed that the court ruled upon the objection, nor that an exception was reserved. The exhibit in question which was introduced in evidence over relators' objection, is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial