White v. Lafoon, No. 19616

Docket NºNo. 19616
Citation135 Ind.App. 100, 192 N.E.2d 474
Case DateSeptember 16, 1963
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 474

192 N.E.2d 474
135 Ind.App. 100
Lizzie Lyles WHITE, Estate of John J. White, Deceased, Carl
Hardiman, as Administrator of the Estate of John
J. White, Deceased, Appellants,
v.
Mildred LAFOON, Appellee.
No. 19616.
Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.
Sept. 16, 1963.

[135 Ind.App. 102]

Page 475

Sanford Trippet, Arthur S. Wilson, Princeton, for appellants.

Page 476

Weyerbacher, Lacey & Rideout, Boonville, McDonald & McDonald, Princeton, for appellee.

KELLEY, Judge.

Appellee's claim against the appellant estate and administrator was tried by jury and resulted in a verdict for appellee in the sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars and costs. Consistent judgment was rendered on the verdict.

Appellants' motion for a new trial, overruled by the trial court, consisted of ten (10) specifications. Specification 1 contained three (3) sub-clauses, designated a., b., and c.; specification 2 contained one (1) sub-clause, designated a.; and specification 10 contained ten (10) sub-clauses, designated a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j.

Specifications la. and 10b., c., d., e., h., i. and j. are not argued and are deemed waived. Specification 4 is not a proper specification of error but involves the same matter as specification 3. Specifications 7 and 8 are not proper specifications of error but constitute the same matter as specifications 5 and 6, respectively. Specification 9 is a duplication of specification 8. Specification 10a. is a duplication of specification 2a.

In addition to assigning as error the action of the court in overruling their motion for a new trial, appellants assign error (1) in the overruling by the court of their motion to make appellee's statement of claim more definite, certain and [135 Ind.App. 103] specific, and (2) error of the court in 'refusing to order * * * claimant (appellee) * * * to file a cost bond' on motion of appellants. Said assignment of error (1) is not supported by any argument nor does appellants' brief or the transcript contain a copy of the motion or show the court's ruling thereon. Said assignment of error (2) is not relied upon or argued by appellants. The brief of the latter states: 'Motion granted and said claimant was ordered to file a cost bond.' In the absence of a record showing to the contrary, it must be assumed that the said order of the court was complied with.

Only specifications 1b., c., 2a., 3, 5, 6, and 10f., g., are left for consideration.

Specification 1b. asserts error in that the court 'abused its discretion by its remarks made in the presence of the jury' concerning alleged 'unfair tactics' of appellants' counsel. We do not find in appellants' brief any reference to the filing by them of any special bill of exceptions containing the referred to remarks of the judge in the presence of the jury which appellants assert to be objectionable. In appellants' motion for a new trial and in the argument portion of their brief, certain statements are put in quotes as having been uttered by court and the several counsel, but there is no reference to any part of the record showing any objections made by anyone to any of such statements. It appears from the new trial motion that the court may have given some kind of an instruction to the jury concerning the matter but said instruction, if given, is not set forth in appellants' brief nor is any objection thereto found in appellants' brief. We find no motion in appellants' brief that the objectionable remarks be withdrawn with appropriate admonition to the jury nor does there appear any motion [135 Ind.App. 104] by appellants for a mistrial or that the submission of the cause to the jury by withdrawn. It follows that appellants have failed to demonstrate error as charged in said specification 1b. Fabian v. Goldstone et al. (1952), 123 Ind.App. 49, 53, 103 N.E.2d 920; Smith, Alias Wilson v. State of Indiana (1960), 241 Ind. 1, 14, pts. 12 and 13, 168 N.E.2d 199.

By Specification 1c., appellants allege that the court abused its discretion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Green v. Green, No. 4-1281A209
    • United States
    • January 24, 1983
    ...the well established rule that an objection which has been sustained cannot serve as the basis for an appeal. White v. Lafoon, (1963) 135 Ind.App. 100, 192 N.E.2d V. Prejudicial Remarks Sharon finally directs our attention to certain statements made by the special judge at the close of evid......
  • Skaggs v. State, No. 4-781A45
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 26, 1982
    ...An objection that is sustained by the trial court cannot serve as the foundation for an argument on appeal. White v. Lafoon, (1963) 135 Ind.App. 100, 192 N.E.2d 474. 4 Skaggs could have renewed his objection during the examination of Mrs. Skaggs to preserve his objection based on IC 34-1-14......
  • Central Indiana Ry. Co. v. Mikesell, No. 20233
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 10, 1966
    ...Court, 1964 Revision; Huff et al. v. Ind. State Hwy. Comm., (1958), 238 Ind. 280, 282, 146 N.E.2d 299; White et al. v. Lafoon, (1963), 135 Ind.App. 100, 102, 192 N.E.2d [139 Ind.App. 483] Appellant, in the argument section of its brief, sets out five separate propositions. Under Proposition......
  • Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp., No. 20591
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 12, 1968
    ...and the offer to prove. Wiltrout's Indiana Practice, Vol. 2, Sec. 1770, p. 539; White et al. v. Lafoon (1963) 135 Ind.App., 100, 107, 192 N.E.2d 474; Matthews v. Adoniram Grand Lodge etc. (1958) 129 Ind.App. 395, 400, 154 N.E.2d 806; Hunt v. State of Ind. (1956) 235 Ind. 276, 281, 133 N.E.2......
4 cases
  • Green v. Green, No. 4-1281A209
    • United States
    • January 24, 1983
    ...the well established rule that an objection which has been sustained cannot serve as the basis for an appeal. White v. Lafoon, (1963) 135 Ind.App. 100, 192 N.E.2d V. Prejudicial Remarks Sharon finally directs our attention to certain statements made by the special judge at the close of evid......
  • Skaggs v. State, No. 4-781A45
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 26, 1982
    ...An objection that is sustained by the trial court cannot serve as the foundation for an argument on appeal. White v. Lafoon, (1963) 135 Ind.App. 100, 192 N.E.2d 474. 4 Skaggs could have renewed his objection during the examination of Mrs. Skaggs to preserve his objection based on IC 34-1-14......
  • Central Indiana Ry. Co. v. Mikesell, No. 20233
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 10, 1966
    ...Court, 1964 Revision; Huff et al. v. Ind. State Hwy. Comm., (1958), 238 Ind. 280, 282, 146 N.E.2d 299; White et al. v. Lafoon, (1963), 135 Ind.App. 100, 102, 192 N.E.2d [139 Ind.App. 483] Appellant, in the argument section of its brief, sets out five separate propositions. Under Proposition......
  • Schabler v. Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp., No. 20591
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 12, 1968
    ...and the offer to prove. Wiltrout's Indiana Practice, Vol. 2, Sec. 1770, p. 539; White et al. v. Lafoon (1963) 135 Ind.App., 100, 107, 192 N.E.2d 474; Matthews v. Adoniram Grand Lodge etc. (1958) 129 Ind.App. 395, 400, 154 N.E.2d 806; Hunt v. State of Ind. (1956) 235 Ind. 276, 281, 133 N.E.2......

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