Opinion
No. 15,065.
Filed June 17, 1935.
1. APPEAL — Briefs — Points and Authorities — Non-compliance with Court Rule. — Where "points and authorities" portion of appellants' brief failed to set out separately numbered points under each error relied on and merely stated abstract propositions, unapplied to any specific error, no question was presented for review. p. 469.
2. APPEAL — Briefs — Points and Authorities — Defects Not Cured by Argument. — Where "points and authorities" portion of appellants' brief merely states abstract propositions in violation of court rules, application of the propositions in the "argument" cannot cure the defect. p. 469.
From Madison Circuit Court; Charles E. Smith, Judge.
Action by John T. McCord and another against Chief Anderson Association, Incorporated, of Madison County, to reform a deed. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed. By the court in banc.
Arthur C. Call, for appellants.
Everett E. McDaniels, and Bagot, Free Morrow, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madison Circuit Court in favor of appellee in an action brought by appellants against appellee in which they sought to reform a warranty deed conveying certain real estate from appellants to appellee. The only error assigned for reversal is the overruling of appellants' motion for a new trial. The causes alleged for a new trial were, that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the decision of the court is contrary to law.
In that portion of their brief devoted to "Propositions and Authorities" appellants have failed to set out under a separate heading of the error relied upon for reversal, 1, 2. separately numbered points. Appellants have set out six separate abstract propositions of law, but no one of them is applied to the assigned error, nor is any one of said propositions addressed to either of the causes assigned as reason for a new trial. Because of appellant's failure to comply with rule 22 of this court, previous to its revision effective November 15, 1933, it follows that no question is presented for our consideration. The argument cannot supply this omission. Noel v. Van Fleit (1933), 205 Ind. 657, 187 N.E. 632; Daily v. Smith (1918), 66 Ind. App. 393, 118 N.E. 312; Johann Realty Corporation v. Kirkpatrick (1934), 99 Ind. App. 70, 177 N.E. 907, 189 N.E. 843; Metropolitan, etc., Co. v. Peabody (1934), 99 Ind. App. 307, 192 N.E. 323.
Judgment affirmed.