TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Branson v. Branson

Branson v. Branson.

Branson v. Branson, 193 N.E. 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 1935)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 23, 1935
Docket
No. 14,725.
Judges
Wood
Citations
193 N.E. 686100 Ind. App. 811935 Ind. App. LEXIS 4

Opinion of the Court — Wood

Wood, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding the appellee a decree of divorce from appellant. Appellant has failed to set out in her brief, the assignment of errors on which she relies for reversal of this cause, or the lines and pages of the transcript where it may be found. She does say that she relies upon the error of the court in overruling her motion for a new trial for reversal, and that the only causes alleged for a new trial are that the decision of the court was contrary to law, and was not sustained by sufficient evidence. She does not set out a copy of her motion for a new trial, or the lines and pages of the transcript where it can be found. The brief fails to show that the appellant saved any exception to the overruling of her motion for a new trial, nor does it refer us to the lines and page of the transcript where such exception, if there was one taken, can be found.

In order to present to this court for its consideration the causes alleged for a new trial it would be necessary *82 to include in the transcript a bill of exceptions containing the evidence. Appellant’s brief fails to show that a bill of exceptions containing the evidence was ever prepared, made a part of the record and incorporated in the transcript on appeal to this court as required by our code of civil procedure.

The appellee has not supplied these omissions. It follows without further comment, that, because of appellant’s failure to comply with the rules of this court in the preparation of her brief, no questions are presented by this appeal for our consideration.

Roark v. Voshell (1915), 58 Ind. App. 203 , 108 N. E. 18 ;

Lieberman v .

DeWitt & Co.

(1919), 71 Ind. App. 326 , 124 N. E. 875 ;

Moriarity v. Hickam, (1920), 73 Ind. App. 329 , 127 N. E. 459 .

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1938: 11942: 21958: 21961: 11965: 11966: 119382026peak 1942 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. BOARD OF MED. REGIST. AND EXAM., ETC. v. Bowman150 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. 1958)
  2. Hayes v. Pennick204 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 1965)
  3. General Ice Coal Co. v. George, Tr.14 N.E.2d 1002 (Ind. 1938)
  4. Smith v. Gowan-Stobo's Estate41 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 1942)
  5. Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. Bowman238 Ind. 532 (1958)
  6. Berning v. Scheuman40 N.E.2d 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Kerski v. St. John's Hickey Memorial Hospital212 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. Ct. App. 1966)
  2. Hayes v. Pennick204 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 1965)
  3. Livingston, Admr. v. Livingston, Trustee178 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 1961)
  4. BOARD OF MED. REGIST. AND EXAM., ETC. v. Bowman150 N.E.2d 883 (Ind. 1958)
  5. Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. Bowman238 Ind. 532 (1958)
  6. Smith v. Gowan-Stobo's Estate41 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Roark v. Voshell, 108 N.E. 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 1915) 5
Moriarity v. Hickam, 127 N.E. 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 1920) 4
Lieberman v. E. C. DeWitt & Co., 124 N.E. 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 1919) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list