Union Ins. Co. of Indiana v. Glover

• Decision Date: 24 June 1941
• Docket Number: No. 16600.,16600.
• Citation: 109 Ind.App. 315,34 N.E.2d 934
• Parties: UNION INS. CO. OF INDIANA v. GLOVER.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

109 Ind.App. 315

34 N.E.2d 934

UNION INS. CO. OF INDIANA

v.GLOVER.

No. 16600.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

June 24, 1941.

Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; Fred C. Gause, Judge.

Action by Rufus Glover against the Union Insurance Company of Indiana to recover on automobile insurance policy. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.Patrick J. Fisher, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Fred E. Shick and John K. Rickles, both of Indianapolis, for appellee.

BLESSING, Chief Judge.

Appellee, Rufus Glover, instituted this action against the appellant, Union Insurance Company, to recover for the loss by theft and fire of an automobile, upon which the appellant had issued a policy of insurance covering such types of loss. The cause was submitted to the court and upon proper request thereof, the court made its special finding of facts and stated its conclusions of law thereon in favor of appellee. Appellant did not except to the conclusions of law. Judgment was then rendered against appellant in the amount of one thousand one hundred seventy-four dollars and sixty seven cents ($1,174.67). Thereafter appellant filed his motion for a new trial which contained the following specifications:

1. The decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence;

2. The decision of the court is contrary to law;

3. The court committed error in the assessment of the amount of recovery in that it was too large;

4. The court committed an error of law at the trial, which was excepted to by the defendant, in that it admitted in evidence the cross-complaint of the Midland Acceptance Corporation in the case of Rufus Glover v. Updyke Auto Co., Inc., et al., to which this defendant was not a party.

The overruling of this motion is the only error assigned on this appeal.

Appellee challenges the sufficiency of appellant's brief to present any question for review in that there is a failure to comply with the rules of the court for the briefing of causes pending on appeal. The attention of the court is called to many claimed defects in the brief of appellant, but only two of said defects need be considered.

[1] Appellant's brief fails to show that any time was given by the trial court in which to file a bill of exceptions containing the evidence and the ruling of the trial court or that any bill of exceptions was ever filed or made a part of the record. The only questions which appellant attempts to present pertain to the evidence, which, without the bill of exceptions, cannot be considered. In such a state of the record, no question is presented to the court for consideration. Clemens et al. v. Stoner, Executor, et al., 73 Ind.App. 370, 126 N.E. 487;Skora v. Skora, 91 Ind.App. 287, 169 N.E. 532;Stirn v. Vohland, 102 Ind.App. 216, 1 N.E.2d 654.

The appellant...