FARMERS MERCHANTS M. INS. CO. v. AMMERMON, 97 Ind. App. 39 (1933)

184 N.E. 419

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMMERMON ET AL.

No. 14,684.Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Filed February 22, 1933. Rehearing denied May 19, 1933.

APPEALS — Briefs — “Propositions” Must Point Out Definite Errors. — A general statement under “points, propositions and authorities” that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law, without pointing out definite reasons therefor, is too uncertain to present any question.

From Tipton Circuit Court; Glen J. Gifford, Judge.

Action by Walter Ammermon and another against Farmers and Merchants Mutual Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appealed. Affirmed. By the court in banc.

Afton L. Herbst and Kemp Russel, for appellant.

Forrest E. Jump, Joseph C. Herron and Cleon Mount, for appellees.

KIME, P.J.

This was an action brought by appellees against appellant to recover upon a certain fire insurance policy. From an adverse finding and judgment, appellant appeals, assigning as error the overruling of its motion for a new trial.

Appellees have directed our attention to the fact that appellant’s brief presents no question for the reason that same does not comply with Rule 22, Clause 5 of the Supreme and Appellate Courts.

A careful examination of the brief of appellant discloses that, under the heading of “Points, Propositions and Authorities,” the only matter set forth is that “The finding and decision of the court herein is not sustained by sufficient evidence,” and “The finding and decision of the court herein is contrary to law,” with seven cases being cited in support thereof. The mere statement that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law, without giving any specific reasons therefor, is too indefinite to present

Page 40

any question to this court for its consideration. Kimmick’s Estate v. Dixon (1931), 93 Ind. App. 8, 177 N.E. 340; Inland Steel Co. v. Smith (1907), 168 Ind. 245, 252, 80 N.E. 538 Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lightheiser (1906), 168 Ind. 438, 78 N.E. 1033, and cases there cited; Gray v. McLaughlin
(1921), 191 Ind. 190, 131 N.E. 518; Kaiser v. Wittekindt
(1916), 62 Ind. App. 171, 112 N.E. 896; Indiana Mfg. Co. v Coughlin (1917), 65 Ind. App. 268, 115 N.E. 260; Starz v Kirsch (1922), 78 Ind. App. 431, 136 N.E. 36; Albaugh Brothers Dover Co. v. Lynas (1910), 47 Ind. App. 30, 93 N.E. 678. “Mere general statements without specific and definite reasons specifically applied present no question under Rule 22, clause 5, of the rules of this court.” Kimmick’s Estate v. Dixon, supra.