Martindale v. Corbin

Per Curiam. The only proper assignment of error relates to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial. Each specification in this motion requires a consideration of the evidence. Appellee calls attention to the fact that appellants have not set out a concise statement of the evidence in their brief and insists that no question is presented for our determination. The decisions of the Supreme and this court sustaining appellee's contention as to each specification in the motion for a new trial are numerous and *325 decisive. See Clemens v. Stoner, Exr. (1920), 73 Ind. App. 370; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Retz (1919), 71 Ind. App. 581, 585, 586; Leedy v. Idle, Trustee (1918), 69 Ind. App. 105, 107; Webster v. Bligh (1912), 50 Ind. App. 56; Jeffersonville School Tp. v. School City, etc. (1911), 50 Ind. App. 178, 182; Rose v. City of Jeffersonville (1916), 185 Ind. 577, 579 ; McClellan v. Thomas (1915), 183 Ind. 310 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hayes (1913), 181 Ind. 87, 107 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Bowen (1913), 179 Ind. 142, 145 ; Huffman v. Thompson (1912), 177 Ind. 366, 368 ; Washington Hotel Realty Co. v. Bedford Stone, etc., Co. (1924), 195 Ind. 128, 143 N. E. 156 ; Gary, etc., R. Co. v. Hacker (1915), 58 Ind. App. 618, 620. Judgment affirmed.