second assigned error in Indiana

1961An assignment of errors that the award of the full board is contrary to law shall be sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the award and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts.” See also Flinn v. Hartley (1933), 96 Ind. App. 320 , 184 N. E. 915 ; Rhoden et al. v. Smith, etc. Elec.

1961An assignment of errors that the award of the full board is contrary to law shall be sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the award and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts.” See also Flinn v. Hartley (1933), 96 Ind. App. 320 , 184 N. E. 915 ; Rhoden et al. v. Smith, etc. Elec.

1928We have examined the brief in Husak v. Clifford (1913), 179 Ind. 173 , 100 N. E. 466 , cited by appellee, and find that, under the heading “Errors Relied on for Reversal,” the appellant set out the errors as iri the instant'case, but, under “Points and Authorities,” appears a restatement of the assignment of errors and that the court “erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.” No attempt was made to point out what particular cause assigned in that motion was relied upon for reversal.

1928We have examined the brief in Husak v. Clifford (1913), 179 Ind. 173 , 100 N. E. 466 , cited by appellee, and find that, under the heading “Errors Relied on for Reversal,” the appellant set out the errors as iri the instant'case, but, under “Points and Authorities,” appears a restatement of the assignment of errors and that the court “erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.” No attempt was made to point out what particular cause assigned in that motion was relied upon for reversal.

1919In case of Radabaugh v. Silvers (1893), 135 Ind. 305 , 35 N. E. 694 , the court said: “There'was no error in overruling the motion to modify the conclusions of law.

1919An exception to, a conclusion of law that the same is erroneous proceeds upon the theory that the facts upon which same was based were full and correct (Ray v. Baker [1905], 165 Ind. 74 , 74 N. E. 619 ); and we therefore proceed, to examine the facts found to determine whether they are sufficient to support the conclusions of law stated by the court.

1919An exception to, a conclusion of law that the same is erroneous proceeds upon the theory that the facts upon which same was based were full and correct (Ray v. Baker [1905], 165 Ind. 74 , 74 N. E. 619 ); and we therefore proceed, to examine the facts found to determine whether they are sufficient to support the conclusions of law stated by the court.

1918Assuming that this is true, such fact is not of controlling influence in the determination of the question whether reversible error is presented by either the first or second assignments, supra. The second assigned error presents no question for review. §348 Burns 1914, Acts 1911 p. 415; Hedekin Land, etc., Co. v. Campbell (1915), 184 Ind. 643 , 112 N. E. 97 . 3.

1918Assuming that this is true, such fact is not of controlling influence in the determination of the question whether reversible error is presented by either the first or second assignments, supra. The second assigned error presents no question for review. §348 Burns 1914, Acts 1911 p. 415; Hedekin Land, etc., Co. v. Campbell (1915), 184 Ind. 643 , 112 N. E. 97 . 3.

1917The first assigned error presents no question (Radcliff v. Radford [1884], 96 Ind. 482 ; Burnett v. Milnes [1897], 148 Ind. 230 , 46 N. E. 464 ), but the rulings of the trial court sought to be presented for review by such assigned error were made grounds of the motion for new trial and are presented by the second assigned error, supra. Said rulings present the controlling question in this case, and will be now considered.

1917The first assigned error presents no question (Radcliff v. Radford [1884], 96 Ind. 482 ; Burnett v. Milnes [1897], 148 Ind. 230 , 46 N. E. 464 ), but the rulings of the trial court sought to be presented for review by such assigned error were made grounds of the motion for new trial and are presented by the second assigned error, supra. Said rulings present the controlling question in this case, and will be now considered.

1917The first assigned error presents no question (Radcliff v. Radford [1884], 96 Ind. 482 ; Burnett v. Milnes [1897], 148 Ind. 230 , 46 N. E. 464 ), but the rulings of the trial court sought to be presented for review by such assigned error were made grounds of the motion for new trial and are presented by the second assigned error, supra. Said rulings present the controlling question in this case, and will be now considered.

1916Co. v. Ritchey (1916), 185 Ind. -, 111 N. E. 913 ; Palmer v. Beal (1915), 60 Ind. App. 208 , 110 N. E. 218 , and eases cited. (2) The record, although purporting to contain a copy of the judgment, the several motions for a new trial, and the exceptions to the various rulings challenged, is defective in that such judgment, motions and exceptions are not covered by, or included in, the clerk’s certificate to the transcript of the record filed in this court.

1916Co. v. Ritchey (1916), 185 Ind. -, 111 N. E. 913 ; Palmer v. Beal (1915), 60 Ind. App. 208 , 110 N. E. 218 , and eases cited. (2) The record, although purporting to contain a copy of the judgment, the several motions for a new trial, and the exceptions to the various rulings challenged, is defective in that such judgment, motions and exceptions are not covered by, or included in, the clerk’s certificate to the transcript of the record filed in this court.

1916Co. v. Ritchey (1916), 185 Ind. -, 111 N. E. 913 ; Palmer v. Beal (1915), 60 Ind. App. 208 , 110 N. E. 218 , and eases cited. (2) The record, although purporting to contain a copy of the judgment, the several motions for a new trial, and the exceptions to the various rulings challenged, is defective in that such judgment, motions and exceptions are not covered by, or included in, the clerk’s certificate to the transcript of the record filed in this court.

1915Farris v. Jones (1887), 112 Ind. 498, 500 , 14 N. E. 484 ; State, ex rel. v. Board, etc. (1908), 170 Ind. 133, 137 , 83 N. E. 83 , and cases cited.

1915Farris v. Jones (1887), 112 Ind. 498, 500 , 14 N. E. 484 ; State, ex rel. v. Board, etc. (1908), 170 Ind. 133, 137 , 83 N. E. 83 , and cases cited.

1915Farris v. Jones (1887), 112 Ind. 498, 500 , 14 N. E. 484 ; State, ex rel. v. Board, etc. (1908), 170 Ind. 133, 137 , 83 N. E. 83 , and cases cited.

1915Farris v. Jones (1887), 112 Ind. 498, 500 , 14 N. E. 484 ; State, ex rel. v. Board, etc. (1908), 170 Ind. 133, 137 , 83 N. E. 83 , and cases cited.

1914Shover v. Jones (1869), 32 Ind. 141 ; Whaley v. Gleason (1872), 40 Ind. 405 ; Secor v. Souder (1884), 95 Ind. 95 ; Emison v. Shepard (1889), 121 Ind. 184 , 22 N. E. 883 ; LaFollette v. Higgins (1887), 109 Ind. 241 , 9 N. E. 780 ; Harris v. Boone (1879), 69 Ind. 300 ; §588 Burns 1914, §562 R.

1914Shover v. Jones (1869), 32 Ind. 141 ; Whaley v. Gleason (1872), 40 Ind. 405 ; Secor v. Souder (1884), 95 Ind. 95 ; Emison v. Shepard (1889), 121 Ind. 184 , 22 N. E. 883 ; LaFollette v. Higgins (1887), 109 Ind. 241 , 9 N. E. 780 ; Harris v. Boone (1879), 69 Ind. 300 ; §588 Burns 1914, §562 R.

1914Shover v. Jones (1869), 32 Ind. 141 ; Whaley v. Gleason (1872), 40 Ind. 405 ; Secor v. Souder (1884), 95 Ind. 95 ; Emison v. Shepard (1889), 121 Ind. 184 , 22 N. E. 883 ; LaFollette v. Higgins (1887), 109 Ind. 241 , 9 N. E. 780 ; Harris v. Boone (1879), 69 Ind. 300 ; §588 Burns 1914, §562 R.

1914Shover v. Jones (1869), 32 Ind. 141 ; Whaley v. Gleason (1872), 40 Ind. 405 ; Secor v. Souder (1884), 95 Ind. 95 ; Emison v. Shepard (1889), 121 Ind. 184 , 22 N. E. 883 ; LaFollette v. Higgins (1887), 109 Ind. 241 , 9 N. E. 780 ; Harris v. Boone (1879), 69 Ind. 300 ; §588 Burns 1914, §562 R.

1914Shover v. Jones (1869), 32 Ind. 141 ; Whaley v. Gleason (1872), 40 Ind. 405 ; Secor v. Souder (1884), 95 Ind. 95 ; Emison v. Shepard (1889), 121 Ind. 184 , 22 N. E. 883 ; LaFollette v. Higgins (1887), 109 Ind. 241 , 9 N. E. 780 ; Harris v. Boone (1879), 69 Ind. 300 ; §588 Burns 1914, §562 R.

1914Shover v. Jones (1869), 32 Ind. 141 ; Whaley v. Gleason (1872), 40 Ind. 405 ; Secor v. Souder (1884), 95 Ind. 95 ; Emison v. Shepard (1889), 121 Ind. 184 , 22 N. E. 883 ; LaFollette v. Higgins (1887), 109 Ind. 241 , 9 N. E. 780 ; Harris v. Boone (1879), 69 Ind. 300 ; §588 Burns 1914, §562 R.

1914Shover v. Jones (1869), 32 Ind. 141 ; Whaley v. Gleason (1872), 40 Ind. 405 ; Secor v. Souder (1884), 95 Ind. 95 ; Emison v. Shepard (1889), 121 Ind. 184 , 22 N. E. 883 ; LaFollette v. Higgins (1887), 109 Ind. 241 , 9 N. E. 780 ; Harris v. Boone (1879), 69 Ind. 300 ; §588 Burns 1914, §562 R.

1914Shover v. Jones (1869), 32 Ind. 141 ; Whaley v. Gleason (1872), 40 Ind. 405 ; Secor v. Souder (1884), 95 Ind. 95 ; Emison v. Shepard (1889), 121 Ind. 184 , 22 N. E. 883 ; LaFollette v. Higgins (1887), 109 Ind. 241 , 9 N. E. 780 ; Harris v. Boone (1879), 69 Ind. 300 ; §588 Burns 1914, §562 R.

1912Beckett v. Little (1899), 23 Ind. App. 65; Paden v. Cavins (1893), 134 Ind. 494 , 39 Am.

1912Beckett v. Little (1899), 23 Ind. App. 65; Paden v. Cavins (1893), 134 Ind. 494 , 39 Am.