Stillabower v. Lizart
| Citation | 159 N.E.2d 144,130 Ind.App. 65 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 19310,19310,1 |
| Parties | Harold STILLABOWER, George T. Tiller, Appellants, v. Vangel S. LIZART, Providence Mary Lizart, Appellees |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Charles Mendenhall, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Gerald W. Ohrn, Albert W. Ewbank, Indianapolis, for appellees.
This action was brought against the appellants herein by the appellees for damages; trial before a jury with a verdict for the appellees. Appellants appeal, assigning as errors that the trial court erred in overruling appellants' separate and several motion to make appellees' complaint more specific; that the damages assessed by the jury and court are excessive, and too large in amount; that the trial court erred in overruling appellants' separate motion for a new trial, and thereafter filed their brief.
Appellees filed a Verified Motion to Dismiss the Appeal or Affirm the Judgment upon many valid grounds relating to the appellants' brief. The appellants have not seen fit to petition the court for permission to amend their brief after the many omissions therein were called to their attention by the appellees' Motion to Dismiss or Affirm.
While it is the desire of this court to decide appeals upon the merits rather than upon technical grounds, we must insist upon a good-faith effort to comply with the applicable rules as stated by our Supreme Court. The Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana have the force and effect of law and are binding upon us as well as the parties in an appeal. We do not deem it necessary to cite authorities upon this proposition, except to state that many authorities on this point can be found in Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton's Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, and West's Indiana Law Encyclopedia.
The appellants' brief does not undertake to set out the Motion for a New Trial either in text or in substance, nor the evidence, or any part thereof, or anything sufficient to present any questions upon the merits under our Supreme Court Rule 2-17.
We are not authorized to search the record for grounds to reverse a judgment. Durham v. City of Indianapolis, 1952, 123 Ind.App. 74, 108 N.E.2d 205; Bromley v. City of Indianapolis, 1949, 119 Ind.App. 184, 85 N.E.2d 93; Ross v. Clore, 1947, 117 Ind.App. 548, 74 N.E.2d 747; Albertson v. Nix, 1944, 115 Ind.App. 128, 57 N.E.2d 206; Wabash Township, Gibson County v. Cooper, 1943, 221 Ind. 304, 47 N.E.2d 611.
We hold that the appellants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diggs v. Bobich, 19319
...et al. (1959), 239 Ind. 545, 157 N.E.2d 193, 194; Hayes v. Adams (1943), 221 Ind. 480, 49 N.E.2d 345; Stillabower et al. v. Lizart et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App. 65, 159 N.E.2d 144, 145, 161 N.E.2d 195; Wischmeyer et al. v. Fisher et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App. 245, 161 N.E.2d 485, 486, 163 N.E.2......
-
Hayes v. Pennick
... ... Stillabower et al. v. Lizart et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App.[137 INDAPP 57] 65, 159 N.E.2d 144, 161 N.E.2d 195, (rehearing denied, transfer denied) ... ...
-
Flick v. Simpson, 967
...the force and effect of law and are binding upon the courts of review as well as the parties. * * * Stillabower et al. v. Lizart et al. (1959) 130 Ind.App. 65, 67, 159 N.E.2d 144, 145, 161 N.E.2d 195.' State ex rel. Spelde v. Minker, Trustee, etc., 244 Ind. 421, 422, 193 N.E.2d 365 (1963). ......
- Stillabower v. Lizart