ruling is assigned error in Indiana

1914Some of the questions thus presented were decided adversely to appellants in the case of Indianapolis, etc., Traa tion Co. v. Essingion (1913), 54 Ind. App. 286 , 99 N. E. 757 , 100 N. E. 765 .

1914Some of the questions thus presented were decided adversely to appellants in the case of Indianapolis, etc., Traa tion Co. v. Essingion (1913), 54 Ind. App. 286 , 99 N. E. 757 , 100 N. E. 765 .

1914The present ease grows out of the same occurrence as that involved in the ease of Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Croly (1913), 54 Ind. App. 566 , 96 N. E. 973 , and it is insisted by appellant, on the authority of that ease, that the evidence in the present ease shows that appellee’s child was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

1914The present ease grows out of the same occurrence as that involved in the ease of Indianapolis Traction, etc., Co. v. Croly (1913), 54 Ind. App. 566 , 96 N. E. 973 , and it is insisted by appellant, on the authority of that ease, that the evidence in the present ease shows that appellee’s child was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

1909Appellee has not seen fit to aid this court by filing a brief in his behalf, and we would therefore be warranted in determining the case against him as on confession of error (People’s Bank v. State, ex rel. [1902], 159 Ind. 353 ; Union Traction Co. v. Forst [1904], 162 Ind. 567 ; Cobe v. Malloy [1909], ante, 8); but this is a matter in the discretion of the court (Berkshire v. Caley [1901], 157 Ind. 1 ; Neu v. Town of Bourbon [1901], 157 Ind. 476 ; Cobe v. Malloy, supra). 2.

1909Appellee has not seen fit to aid this court by filing a brief in his behalf, and we would therefore be warranted in determining the case against him as on confession of error (People’s Bank v. State, ex rel. [1902], 159 Ind. 353 ; Union Traction Co. v. Forst [1904], 162 Ind. 567 ; Cobe v. Malloy [1909], ante, 8); but this is a matter in the discretion of the court (Berkshire v. Caley [1901], 157 Ind. 1 ; Neu v. Town of Bourbon [1901], 157 Ind. 476 ; Cobe v. Malloy, supra). 2.

1909Appellee has not seen fit to aid this court by filing a brief in his behalf, and we would therefore be warranted in determining the case against him as on confession of error (People’s Bank v. State, ex rel. [1902], 159 Ind. 353 ; Union Traction Co. v. Forst [1904], 162 Ind. 567 ; Cobe v. Malloy [1909], ante, 8); but this is a matter in the discretion of the court (Berkshire v. Caley [1901], 157 Ind. 1 ; Neu v. Town of Bourbon [1901], 157 Ind. 476 ; Cobe v. Malloy, supra). 2.

1909Appellee has not seen fit to aid this court by filing a brief in his behalf, and we would therefore be warranted in determining the case against him as on confession of error (People’s Bank v. State, ex rel. [1902], 159 Ind. 353 ; Union Traction Co. v. Forst [1904], 162 Ind. 567 ; Cobe v. Malloy [1909], ante, 8); but this is a matter in the discretion of the court (Berkshire v. Caley [1901], 157 Ind. 1 ; Neu v. Town of Bourbon [1901], 157 Ind. 476 ; Cobe v. Malloy, supra). 2.

1906Parkison v. Thompson (1905), 164 Ind. 609 . (5) Appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and this ruling is assigned as error.

1904In such an action the defendant is permitted to give in evidence, under his answer of denial, every defense to the action that he may have, either legal or equitable. §§1067, 1082, 1083 Burns 1901; Graham v. Graham, 55 Ind. 23 .

1899It is only necessary to refer to the recent case of City of Evansville v. Senhenn, 151 Ind. 42 (wherein the cases holding the doctrine of imputed, negligence to be applicable in such a case as this are overruled), in order to substantiate appellant’s claim that the trial court, in overruling appellant’s motion for judgment on the special verdict, was in error, for which error appellant asks that the decision be reversed.” We express a doubt as to the sufficiency of the argument in this brief to prevent a waiver of the questions arising upon the special verdict.

1893This ruling is in harmony with the decision in this case on the former appeal, 115 Ind. 234 .

1885There being no averment in the complaint that there was a “ note or memorandum in writing of the bargain,” it will be presumed, following the rule in Krohn v. Bantz, 68 Ind. 277 , that no writing was signed.

1883Bennett v. State, ex rel., 22 Ind. 147; Harrison v. Hedges, 60 Ind. 266 .

1883Bennett v. State, ex rel., 22 Ind. 147; Harrison v. Hedges, 60 Ind. 266 .

1875If we are to adhere to, and be governed by, The Board of Commissioners of Switzerland County v. Hildebrand, 1 Ind. 555 , there was no error in this ruling.

1874The appellant’s argument is as follows: “ The superior court in special and general term held, on the decisions in the cases of The Trustees, etc., v. Brett, 25 Ind. 409 ; and Sheets v. Selden, 7 Wallace (U. S.), 416, that the complaint showed no cause of action.

1863This ruling is assigned for error, but the point involved in the exception does not appear to have been presented to the Court in the motion for a new trial, and can not, therefore, be considered by this Court. 15 Ind. 440 , 441; 12 id. 675.