Opinion
No. 25,423.
Filed May 29, 1928.
1. APPEAL — Briefs — "Points and Authorities" Necessary. — A brief for appellant which contains no "Points and Authorities," and otherwise fails to meet substantially the requirements of Rule 22 of the Supreme Court, and from which it cannot be told what question is sought to be presented is insufficient. p. 116.
2. APPEAL — Assignment of Error — Insufficiency of Complaint — Not Proper. — The insufficiency of a complaint to state a cause of action is not a proper assignment of error. p. 117.
3. APPEAL — Assignment of Error — Conclusions of Law — When Improper. — Assigning as error that the court erred in its conclusions of law was improper where no special findings or conclusions of law were asked for or made. p. 117.
4. APPEAL — Improper Assignments of Error. — That the judgment is not fairly supported by the evidence, that the decision of the court is not fairly supported by the evidence, that the judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence and that the decision of the court is clearly against the weight of the evidence, are not proper assignments of error. p. 117.
5. APPEAL — Specific Improper Assignment of Error. — That "the court erred in compelling the appellant to violate the law by paying money out of funds that do not exist" is not a proper assignment of error. p. 117.
6. APPEAL — Inappropriate Assignment of Error. — While an assignment of error that the court overruled appellant's motion for a new trial is proper, it is inappropriate when the record does not show that the court overruled such motion. p. 117.
7. NEW TRIAL — Improper Reasons for a New Trial. — That the "verdict" of the court is "contrary to the evidence" is not a proper specification in a motion for a new trial. The same is true of a specification that "the finding of the court would make the defendant, controller of the City of Indianapolis, liable on his bond." p. 117.
From Marion Superior Court (A39,497); Byron K. Elliott, Judge.
Action by the State of Indiana on the relation of Sara Rodgers against William C. Buser, Comptroller of the City of Indianapolis. From a judgment for the relator, the defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Schuyler A. Haas, John K. Ruckelshaus and Donald F. Roberts, for appellant.
Ira M. Holmes, for appellee.
The brief of the appellant is incomplete and insufficient. It contains no "Points and Authorities" and otherwise fails to meet substantially the requirements of Rule 22. It is not merely 1. deficient technically, but it is so insufficient that from it we cannot tell what question, if any, appellant seeks to present for our determination.
Appellant's assignment of error is as follows:
"The appellant says that there is manifest error in the proceedings and judgment in said cause, in each of the following particulars: (1) The complaint of appellee does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against appellant. (2) The court erred in its conclusions of law. (3) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. (4) The judgment appealed from is not fairly supported by the evidence. (5) The decision of the court is not fairly supported by the evidence. (6) The judgment appealed from is clearly against the weight of the evidence. (7) The decision of the court is clearly against the weight of the evidence. (8) The court erred in compelling the appellant to violate the law by paying money out of funds that do not exist."
The formal wording of No. 1 is that commonly used in a demurrer to a complaint, but here no demurrer was filed. It is improper as an assignment of error. We do not understand what was 2-7. meant by No. 2, since no findings of facts or conclusions of law were asked for or had in this cause. Numbers 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are not proper assignments of error on appeal. Number 3 is a correct assignment, but the record does not show that the court overruled the motion for a new trial. Furthermore, the reasons given in the motion for a new trial: "(1) That the verdict of the court is contrary to the evidence. (2) That the finding of the court would make the defendant, William C. Buser, Controller of the City of Indianapolis, liable on his bond," are not proper reasons.
Judgment affirmed.