Opinion
No. 14,302.
Filed November 4, 1931. Rehearing denied March 18, 1932.
1. APPEALS — Review of Sufficiency of Evidence — Compliance with Rule Requiring Recital of Evidence — Statement Showing where Testimony may be Found. — Giving the pages and lines of the record where testimony of a witness may be found is not a compliance with cl. 5 of Rule 22 requiring appellant's brief to contain a "condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form" if the insufficiency of the evidence is one of the grounds for a new trial. p. 183.
2. APPEALS — Appellant's Brief — Abstract Propositions of Law — Without any Grouping under Specific Headings — Require Affirmance. — Where the propositions in appellant's brief are not applied to any particular assignment of error, but consist of abstract propositions of law, without any grouping under any specific heading, thus making it impossible to determine their application to the errors assigned, the judgment must be affirmed. p. 184.
From LaPorte Circuit Court; Milton J. Sallwasser, Special Judge.
Action between Elizabeth Hudacko, administratrix, and Pearlee A. Parks. From the judgment rendered, the former appealed. Affirmed. By the court in banc.
A.C. Folea, Darrow, Rowley Shields and McMahan Smith, for appellant.
P.A. Parks, for appellee.
The errors assigned in this appeal in the first place require a consideration of the evidence.
Rule 22 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts requires that, if the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict or finding in law or fact is assigned, the statement shall 1. contain a condensed recital of the evidence in narrative form so as to present the substance clearly and concisely. The appellant has failed to comply with this rule, for example, on page 37 of the brief is this statement: "Oral testimony of August C. Folea on direct examination appears on Rec. page 129 lines 4 to Rec. p. 130." This would require this court to search the record to reverse the case. This method is followed throughout appellant's brief.
The complaint that is alleged to be the foundation of a cause of action, which the court trying this case held to be void because it showed that the justice of the peace before whom it was first tried had no jurisdiction, is not in evidence. Likewise, a number of exhibits introduced in evidence and which are vital parts of the evidence are referred to by number, but their substance is not set out in appellant's brief.
In the appellant's brief, under Points and Authorities, the propositions stated are not applied to any particular assignment of error. Abstract propositions of law are stated, but we 2. are unable to determine from the brief in what particular they apply to the errors assigned, and, under such circumstances, it has been frequently held to require an affirmance of the case. See Baker v. Stehle (1918), 187 Ind. 468, 119 N.E. 4; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Ritchey (1916), 185 Ind. 28, 111 N.E. 913; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dinius (1913), 180 Ind. 596, 103 N.E. 652.
On authority of the above decisions, the judgment is affirmed.