Waters v. Perfect Circle Corp.

Decision Date10 September 1953
Docket NumberNo. 18443,18443
Citation114 N.E.2d 436,124 Ind.App. 70
PartiesWATERS et al. v. PERFECT CIRCLE CORP.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

James L. Murray, Murray, Mannon, Fairchild & Stewart, Indianapolis, for appellee.

KENDALL, Chief Judge.

The appellee filed motion to dismiss this appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the appellants' brief in that there is a failure to comply with Rule 2-17(d). The motion as filed calls the court's attention to many alleged defects in appellants' brief, among which are the following: '* * * (c.) There is no showing in appellants' Statement of the Record that there was a decision of a single member of the Industrial Board, and, if there was one, it is not set out in appellants' brief either in full or in substance. (d.) There is no showing in appellants' Statement of the Record that appellants filed within time an application to review the original finding and award, if there was one. (e.) There is no showing in appellants' Statement of the Record that the cause was presented to the Full Industrial Board or that the Full Industrial Board ever made a finding and order herein. (f.) If there was a final finding and order of the Full Industrial Board in this cause, it is not set out in appellants' brief either in full or in substance.'

Rule 2-17(d) of the Supreme Court provides that the brief of the appellant shall contain '(d) A concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents every error and objection relied upon, referring to the pages and lines of the transcript.'

In the instant case, the appellants assign as error that the award of the Full Industrial Board is contrary to law. The court has carefully examined appellants' brief and fails to find where even the substance of the appellants' application for an award is set out; neither do we find the judgment or order of a single member nor that of the Full Industrial Board given in full or in substance. The court must, therefore, go to the transcript itself to determine what the issues and judgment were; also if an appeal was prayed for or granted. Neither is there a showing that the appeal was filed within 30 days after the order of the Full Industrial Board. These are all matters of such a vital nature in the preparation of an appellants' brief that in the absence thereof this court cannot say that the appellants have made a good faith effort to comply with the rules of this court. It has been held that it is the duty of an appellant in the preparation of his brief to inform the court what actually took place or what happened in the lower court. Williams v. Utilities Engineering Institute, 1946, 116 Ind.App. 452, 64 N.E.2d 302.

We find nothing in the appellants' brief that gives the court any information actually as to whether a Bill of Exceptions was filed, approved and made a part of the record. Upon appellants' failure to so do, there is no question presented to this court for consideration. Heckman v. Howard, 1941, 109 Ind.App. 548, 36 N.E.2d 957; (See also Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton, paragraph 2677, p. 305).

The court likewise fails to find any statement or order in the appellants' brief by which this court can determine what occurred or order made by the single member or the Full Board without resorting to the record, and this the court is not required to do. Yiatros v. Cole, 1946, 117 Ind.App. 19, 68 N.E.2d 657. This court has heretofore affirmed a judgment of the lower court where there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Guthrie v. Blakely
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 19 Enero 1956
    ...152 Ind. 177, 52 N.E. 803; Allmon v. Review Board of Indiana, 1953, 124 Ind.App. 212, 116 N.E.2d 115; Waters v. Perfect Circle Corporation, 1953, 124 Ind.App. 70, 114 N.E.2d 436; Witte v. Witte, 1953, 123 Ind.App. 644, 113 N.E.2d 166; Hoover v. Shaffer, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 399, 80 N.E.2d 569......
  • Loper v. Standard Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 29 Noviembre 1965
    ...Co. (1965), ind.App., 204 N.E.2d 883; Evans v. Pope (1957), 127 Ind.App. 386, 141 N.E.2d 924; Waters et al. v. Perfect Circle Corporation (1953), 124 Ind.App. 70, 73, 114 N.E.2d 436. Therefore, appellant's asserted theory of his right of action [138 INDAPP 93] to recover as a third party be......
  • Coats v. Clanin, 18950
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 24 Enero 1958
    ...873 (Transfer denied); Bennett v. James H. Drew Corporation, 1956, 126 Ind.App. 557, 133 N.E.2d 886; Waters v. Perfect Circle Corporation, 1953, 124 Ind.App. 70, 114 N.E.2d 436; Hughes v. State Bank of West Terre Haute, 1954, 124 Ind.App. 511, 117 N.E.2d 563 (Transfer denied); Witte v. Witt......
  • Ambuhl v. Marcy
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 22 Marzo 1957
    ...v. Roger, 1952, 122 Ind.App. 119, 125, 130, 131, 99 N.E.2d 435, 102 N.E.2d 504, (Transfer denied); Waters v. Perfect Circle Corporation, 1953, 124 Ind.App. 70, 72, 73, 114 N.E.2d 436, as additional authorities, that appellant took any action to correct the record and their brief. It is well......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT