
    Union Traction Company of Indiana v. Wolf.
    [No. 10,434.
    Filed June 2, 1920.]
    
      Appeal. — Review.-—Faihurs of Appellee to File Briefs. — Reversal. —A failure on the part of an appellee to file a brief may be treated as a confession óf error warranting reversal.
    From Delaware Superior Court; Robert M. Van Atta, Judge.
    Action by Charles Wolf against the Union Traction Company of Indiana. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
    
      Reversed.
    
    
      J. A. Van Osdol, W. A. Kittenger, W. S. Diven and Albert Diven, for appellant.
   Nichols, J.

Appellee has failed to file any brief. 'It has been repeatedly held by this court and by the Supreme Court that a failure on the part of the appellee to file a brief may be treated as a confession of error, warranting reversal. Eigelsbach v. Kanne (1915), 184 Ind. 62, 110 N. E. 549; Huddleston v. Huddleston (1916), 184 Ind. 168, 110 N. E. 980; Veit v. Windhorst (1916), 184 Ind. 351, 110 N. E. 666. Having examined appellant’s brief, we are satisfied that in this case the rule should be invoked.

Judgment reversed, with instruction to the trial court to grant a new trial.  