State v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 23 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | 14,008 |
| Citation | 183 N.E. 680,95 Ind.App. 390 |
| Parties | STATE OF INDIANA v. SNYDER ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Marion Superior Court sitting as a court of claims; William O. Dunlavy, Linn D. Hay, James M. Leathers, William S McMaster and Joseph M. Milner, Judges.
Action by James M. Snyder and others against the State. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
James M. Ogden, Attorney-General, and Connor D. Ross, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellant.
Henderson & Henderson, George V. Moss and Harker & Irwin, for appellees.
This action was brought by appellee, a partnership, in the Marion Superior Court, sitting as a court of claims. The complaint purports to be drawn on the theory of a breach of a highway construction contract entered into by appellee partnership with the State of Indiana, through the Indiana State Highway Commission, for the construction of project No. 74B on a state road between Lebanon and LaFayette; the alleged breach relied upon being delay in procuring the right of way.
The issues were joined on appellee's amended complaint and appellant's six paragraphs of answer, which answer was filed after appellant's demurrer to the complaint for insufficiency of facts had been overruled. The answers were (1) General denial; (2) plea in abatement; (3) and (5) estoppel; (4) and (6) waiver. The cause was tried on the amended complaint and the answer in six paragraphs. The trial court, upon request, found the facts specially; stated its conclusions of law thereon, and rendered judgment accordingly and in favor of appellee. The errors relied upon for reversal are: (1) Error of the court in overruling appellant's demurrer to appellee's amended complaint (2) error of the court in each of the conclusions of law; (3) error of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, assigning causes: (1) That the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) the decision of the court is contrary to law; (3) separate error in the admission of several items of evidence; (4) error of the court in denying appellant's motion for leave to file its tender seventh paragraph of answer.
The appellee has called our attention to the fact that appellant's brief is not in compliance with the rules of this court in that many of appellant's propositions are abstract statements and not specifically applied to the errors complained of, and, hence, not in compliance with Rule 22 of the court. Further, appellant has attempted to combine "error in conclusions of law" and "sufficiency of the evidence." We believe there is much merit in appellee's contention.
No error is presented with regard to the admission of evidence because appellant fails to set out in its statement of the record the question, objection, ruling, exception and answer.
The special finding of facts are, in substance, that appellees as partners, entered into a contract with the State Highway Commission for the construction of a Federal Aid project, known as project No. 74, section B; that pursuant to said contract said contractor entered upon the construction of the improvement; constructed a complete plant at the side thereof, provided and installed a complete unit of equipment for the contraction of said work and fully performed all the provisions of said contract on the part of said contractor to be performed, at the time and in the manner required by said contract and the orders of said defendant, excepting only as delayed by the fault of the appellant. That, by virtue of said contract, it was the duty of the defendant to furnish the right of way for said highway; that at the time the proposal for bids for the construction for said project was filed and the contract entered into by the parties and at the time the contractor entered upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial