Opinion
No. 18,077.
Filed November 6, 1950.
APPEAL — Briefs — Failure To Set Out Pleadings, Papers or Evidence on Appeal From Zoning Board Decision — No Question Presented for Review. — On appeal from a superior court judgment, affirming a decision of a board of zoning appeals, on the ground that it was error to overrule the motion for new trial specifying the decision was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law, where appellants failed to set out in their brief any of the pleadings or papers filed in the case, nor did they show any of the proceedings before the board and their brief failed to contain a condensed recital of the evidence considered either by the board or the trial court, no question was presented for review.
From the St. Joseph Superior Court, No. 1, J. Fred Bingham, Judge.
Certiorari proceedings by Benjamin S. and Jeannette Helmer against James H. and Nina L. Flood and Board of Zoning Appeals of Mishawaka, Indiana, to review a decision by that Board. From a judgment affirming the decision of the Board, the Helmers appeal.
Affirmed. By the court in banc.
Irving A. Hurwich, of South Bend, for appellants.
Benjamin Piser, of South Bend, and Vernon J. Freed, of Mishawaka, for appellees.
A decision of the board of zoning appeals of the city of Mishawaka was reviewed by certiorari by the Superior Court of St. Joseph county. See Burns' 1933 (1949 Supp.), § 53-783. The court affirmed the decision of the board of zoning appeals, which decision was adverse to the appellants Helmer and Helmer. In this court the appellants assign as error the overruling of their motion for new trial, which specifies that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that it is contrary to law.
The appellants' brief wholly fails to set out any pleadings or papers filed in the case, either at length or in condensed form. Neither the petition for writ of certiorari, the return of the board of zoning appeals thereto, nor the answers filed by the appellees are shown. None of the proceedings before the board are shown and none of the evidence considered by the board or by the court below, either documentary or otherwise, is condensed in appellants' brief.
We are compelled to hold that no question is presented.
Judgment affirmed.
NOTE. — Reported in 94 N.E.2d 676.