Witte v. Witte, 18437
| Decision Date | 25 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 18437,18437 |
| Citation | 113 N.E.2d 166,123 Ind.App. 644 |
| Parties | WITTE v. WITTE et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Charles Mendenhall, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Elmer G. Schloot, Muncie, and Frank A. Symmes, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellees.
Appellees filed motion to dismiss or affirm this appeal for failure of appellant to comply with Rule 2-17 in the preparation of his brief.
Appellees contend that appellant's brief is insufficient in that it does not set forth a concise statement of the record; neither does it contain a copy of the complaint or answer thereto, and that appellant has not shown a good faith effort to comply with said Rule. It is further pointed out that a narrative form of the evidence has failed to be set forth in appellant's brief.
After a review of the appellant's brief, consisting of eight and one-half pages, the court is of the opinion that there has not been a good faith effort made on the part of the appllant to comply with the rules of this court so as to present clearly any questions intended to be presented. There does not appear to be a correct summary of the evidence so as to sufficiently advise the court as to what the evidence was without reference to the transcript. The evidence given by the appellant is approximately three typewritten pages and purports to be nothing more than a statement of the appellant's contention or beliefs and at most are conclusions of the appellant. The record contains ninety-seven pages of evidence. There were four witnesses--two for the appellant and two for the appellees. There is not a narrative statement of the evidence of the appellee, Betty R. Witte. The only narrative statement as it is is that of the appellant himself. No reference being made as to what evidence was given by two witnesses.
There is a failure of the appellant to mention the many exhibits which are contained in the record. Appellant shows motion for new trial under the heading, 'How the Issues were Decided and What the Judgment was'. In the three pages of the recital of the evidence, the evidence is commingled with appellant's alleged errors. For instance, following a portion of the evidence is the following statement:
'The trial court erred in sustaining an objection to a question asked appellant at the time they were going to close the deal for the purchase of this real estate about a conversation with co-appellee, Betty R. Witte. * * *'
There further appears under the narrative statement of the evidence other references of the appellant as to the court's alleged errors. It is most difficult to sift the appellant's contention as to what the errors are from the recital of the evidence as given.
It is further to be noted that the appellant's brief does not contain the assignment of errors or the index thereof.
This court has held that the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed for failure of appellant to set out in his brief the errors relied upon and where they fail to inform the court except by inference what the assignment of errors are. Griffith v. Felts, 1912, 52 Ind.App. 268, 99 N.E. 432; Waggoner v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 269, 85 N.E.2d 642.
This court will not search the record in order to reverse. Lake Motor Freight Line v. New York Central R. Co., 1950, 228 Ind. 371, 92 N.E.2d 221.
Under the heading of 'Argument' in the appellant's brief, there is a total lack of failure to give the specifications of the assigned errors which are intended to be urged and each cause in the motion for new trial which is intended to be urged by the appellant. The argument portion of the brief is not in accordance with Rule 2-17(e). Mere propositions of law are quoted and citations given. The appellant has altogether failed to apply the cases cited to the facts of the instant case and the application thereof.
This court does not desire to dispose of litigation by mere technicalities. The rules of the Supreme Court are clear and concise and it is the duty of attorneys to prepare their briefs in accordance therewith. In some instances slight failure to follow the rules has been overlooked so that the merits of the case might be decided; however, in this case, there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guthrie v. Blakely
...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; Fetter v. Powers, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 367, 78 N.E.2d 555; Bla......
-
Nelson v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Indianapolis, 18997
...115 Ind.App. 335, 56 N.E.2d 496. This court does not desire to dispose of litigation by mere technicalities. Witte v. Witte et al., 1953, 123 Ind.App. 644, 113 N.E.2d 166. Appellees, in support of their position, cite the case of Williams v. Williams, 1953, 123 Ind.App. 495, 112 N.E.2d 305,......
-
Israel v. Logansport Aerie No. 323, Fraternal Order of Eagles
...634, 637, 184 N.E.2d 161; Justice v. Tripp (1959), 130 Ind.App. 187, 191, 158 N.E.2d 809, (Transfer denied); Witte v. Witte, et al. (1953), 123 Ind.App. 644, 648, 113 N.E.2d 166. Appellant's brief must be prepared in such a manner that a printed copy of the record for each judge will be unn......
-
Loper v. Standard Oil Co.
...is to permit each Judge of this Court to intelligently consider the questions presented from the brief alone. Witte v. Witte et al. (1953), 123 Ind.App. 644, 113 N.E.2d 166. There are now eight Judges in banc, and four Judges to each Division, sitting in this Court. There is only one transc......