Tongret v. Carlin
| Decision Date | 17 November 1905 |
| Docket Number | 20,611 |
| Citation | 75 N.E. 887,165 Ind. 489 |
| Parties | Tongret et at. v. Carlin et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Rush Circuit Court; Douglas Morris, Judge.
Action by Frank J. Carlin and others against Stewart T. Tongret and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Transferred from Appellate Court under § 1337u Burns 1901, Acts 1901, p. 590.
Affirmed.
Will M. Sparks and Gates Sexton, for appellants.
Gavin & Davis and Innes & Morgan, for appellees.
From the appellants' brief it is impossible to ascertain any question involved in this appeal. Appellants assign as the only error the overruling of their motion for a new trial. That motion, neither in terms nor substance, is set out in the brief. There is no suggestion in the brief of a single ground of the motion. There is no recital of the evidence in narrative, or any other form. In short, appellants, in their brief, have made no attempt to comply with the fifth subdivision of rule twenty-two, and for this reason we are constrained to hold, following other previous decisions of the court, that no question is presented for our consideration. Henderson v. Henderson (1905), post, 666, and cases cited.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewelling v. Manufacturing Wood Workers Underwriters
...an unincorporated association in the absence of express legislative authority. 94 Ark. 277; 34 Id. 144. See also 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 788; 75 N.E. 887; 116 St. Rep. 272; 30 Cyc. 102; 31 Cyc. 487. 4. The action brought was forbidden by the policy. 56 L. R. A. 193; 62 N. J. Law 16; 39 N.Y.S. 58......
- Thomas v. Durchslag
-
Thieme & Wagner Brewing Co. v. Kesler
...of rule 22 of this court (55 N. E. vi) precludes any consideration of questions arising upon the motion for a new trial. Tongret v. Carlin, 165 Ind. 489, 75 N. E. 887;Henderson v. Henderson, 165 Ind. 671, 75 N. E. 269; Indpls. St. R. Co. v. Marschke, 166 Ind. 497, 77 N. E. 945;Howard v. Adk......
- La Salle Varnish Co. v. Glos