Wood v. Chicago & E.R. Co., 27187.

• Citation: 215 Ind. 467,18 N.E.2d 772
• Decision Date: 31 January 1939
• Docket Number: No. 27187.,27187.
• Parties: WOOD v. CHICAGO & E. R. CO.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

215 Ind. 467

18 N.E.2d 772

WOOD

v.CHICAGO & E. R. CO.

No. 27187.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 31, 1939.

Appeal from Wabash Circuit Court; Lemuel W. Royse, Special judge.

Suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., for personal injuries by James S. Wood against the Chicago & Erie Railroad Company. From the judgment, the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, and the case was transferred from the Appellate Court under Burns' Ann.St.1933, § 4-215.

Judgment affirmed.

Superseding opinion in 14 N.E.2d 725.Samuel E. Cook and Arthur D. Sayler, both of Huntington, and E. E. Eikenbary, of Wabash, for appellant.

Bowers, Feightner & Bowers, of Huntington, for appellee.

FANSLER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding $200 damages to the appellant in an action for personal injuries governed by the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq.

Error is predicated upon the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.

Appellant asserts that the court erred in refusing to give two certain instructions tendered by appellant, and in giving one instruction tendered by appellee. It is also contended that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. The complaint is that the amount of the damages assessed is too small.

Appellee suggests that the appellant's brief presents no question. It is true that only by the greatest liberality can it be said that it conforms to the rules. The instruction tendered and given at the request of the appellee, of which appellant complains, is not set out in the appellant's brief. The court will not search the record to find error. The appellant has not set out in his brief all of the instructions given at the trial. Where error is assigned upon the giving of an erroneous instruction, it is not necessary for the appellant to set out all of the instructions, but if error is assigned upon the refusal to give instructions it is necessary that appellant set out all of the instructions which were given, as well as the ones which it is claimed were erroneously refused. See Maxey v. State, Ind.Sup.1938, 16 N.E.2d 880. No question is presented with respect to the instructions.

The appellant has not attempted to set out a concise statement of all of the evidence, but only ‘evidence as to the injuries caused by defendant's negligence to show that the small verdict of only $200.00 is not sufficient.’ Under the federal statute, which appellant concedes controlled the...