Opinion
No. 18,586.
Filed December 16, 1954.
APPEAL — Answer Brief — Failure to File — Prima Facie Showing of Reversible Error. — If an answer brief, as required by Rule 2-15, is not filed, the court on appeal may reverse the judgment if the appellant's brief makes a prima facie showing of reversible error.
From the Marion Municipal Court, Room 1, Joseph N. Myers, Judge.
Appellant, Consolidated Holding, Inc., brought this action for unpaid rent and damages to property. Verdict was for appellees, Calvin and Marilyn Anweiler, and this appeal is prosecuted.
Reversed. By the court in banc.
Clinton H. Givan, and Madge W. Kretsch, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Kunz Kunz, of Indianapolis, for appellees.
Action by appellant against appellees for unpaid rent and damages to property. Trial by jury. Verdict for appellees.
Only error assigned is the overruling by the court of appellant's motion for a new trial. Specifications of motion relied upon by appellant are insufficiency of evidence to sustain verdict and that verdict is contrary to law.
Appellant concedes that evidence as to the property damage was conflicting and that jury could have found either way on that question. However, appellant insists that the evidence is undisputed that appellee, Calvin Anweiler, owed appellant rent in the amount of $125.00 which said appellee had not paid.
Appellees have not filed an answer brief as required by Rule 2-15. Therefore, if appellant's brief makes a prima facie showing of reversible error, we may reverse the judgment. Meadows et al. v. Hickman et al. (1947), 225 Ind. 146, 73 N.E.2d 343; State of Indiana ex rel. Board of Medical Registration and Examination v. Stucker (1953), 232 Ind. 76, 111 N.E.2d 714. An examination of appellant's brief discloses that it does make such a showing.
The judgment appealed from is reversed with instructions to sustain appellant's motion for a new trial.
NOTE. — Reported in 122 N.E.2d 905.