
    Schowe v. Bower et al.
    [No. 23,060.
    Filed January 9, 1917.]
    Appeal. — Briefs. — Sufficiency. — Dismissal. — Where appellant’s brief, in an appeal in a highway proceeding, contains only a narrative statement of the proceedings before the board of county commissioners and the circuit court and an argument discussing certain rulings, but the errors relied on for reversal are not set out, no attempt is made to state the record or its substance, and no points and authorities are submitted in support of appellant’s contention, such brief waives the questions suggested . for failure to comply with the rules governing the preparation of briefs, and a dismissal of the appeal is required.
    From Clark Circuit Court; James W. Fortune, Judge.
    Action by Henry F. Schowe against John M. Bower and others. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiif appeals.
    
      Appeal dismissed.
    
    
      H. A. Burtt and J. E. Taggart, for appellant.
    
      John Calvin McKillip, for appellees.
   Spencer, J.

This is a highway proceeding in which appellant seeks to question the action of the Clark Circuit Court in dismissing his appeal from a judgment entered in such proceeding by the board of commissioners of Clark county. What purports to be “Appellant’s Brief” contains only a short narrative statement of the various steps taken before the board of commissioners and the circuit court, and an argument in which counsel discuss some of the rulings to which objection is urged. The errors relied on for reversal are not set out in any form, there is no attempt made to state the record or its substance, and no points and authorities are submitted in support of appellant’s contention. This failure to comply with the rules governing the preparation of briefs in this court operates as a waiver of all questions suggested and necessitates a dismissal of the appeal. City of Huntington v. Cline (1913), 181 Ind. 7, 103 N. E. 795; Anderson v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 590, 101 N. E. 84; Pry v. Ramage (1911), 176 Ind. 446, 96 N. E. 385; Doehring v. Hollenbeck (1914), 58 Ind. App. 80, 104 N. E. 770.

Appeal dismissed.

Note.—Reported in 114 N. E. 689.  