
    Smith et al. v. Finney.
    [No. 8,326.
    Filed April 10, 1914.]
    1. Appeal. — Briefs. — Questions Revieioable. — ■ Where appellants’ briefs utterly fail to comply with the rules of court, no question is presented for review on appeal, p. 94.
    2. Appeal. — Jurisdiction.—Failure to Assign Error. — An assignment of errors is essential to give the court jurisdiction of an appeal, and in the absence of such assignment a dismissal is required. p. 94.
    From Superior Court of Marion County (83,874); Charles J. Orbison, Judge.
    Action by Lydia E. Finney against Carey L. Smith and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
    
      Appeal dismissed.
    
    
      Fred Hoffstadt, for appellants.
    
      J. S. Smith and J. E. Martin, for appellee.
   Ibach, J.

Appellants’ briefs utterly fail to comply with the rules of this court. Among other defects, no propositurns or points are stated, nor are any authorities cited in support of any error attempted to he presented, and for this reason alone nothing is before us for our consideration. Rupel v. Ohio Oil Co. (1911), 176 Ind. 4, 95 N. E. 225, Ann. Cas. 1913 E. 836; Albaugh Bros., etc., Co. v. Lynas (1911), 47 Ind. App. 30, 93 N. E. 678; Schilling v. Quinn (1912), 178 Ind. 443, 99 N. E. 740. However, upon examination of the transcript, we find no assignment of errors. An assignment of errors is necessary to give this court jurisdiction. Elliott, App. Proc. §303; Ewbank’s Manual §124. In the absence of an assignment of errors, the cause must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 104 N. E. 887. See, also, under (1) 2 Cyc. 1013. (2) 2 Cyc. 1010.  