
    Layman et al. v. Buck et ux.
    [No. 3,896.
    Filed October 1, 1901.]
    Appeal and Error. — Record.—Where in an appeal by plaintiff neither the pleadings nor the evidence is in the record, and the appellants’ attorneys assert that the action is to quiet title and for possession, and appellees’ attorneys contend that it is to quiet title only, and it appears that if the action is to quiet title, it is bound by the statute of limitation, the Appellate Court will not disturb the judgment of the trial court.
    From Greene Circuit Court; W. W. Moffett, Judge.
    Action by James T. Layman and others against Isaac V. Buck and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      J. B. Filbert, for appellants.
    
      H. W. Letsinger, T. Van Buskirk and T. T. Stinkard, for appellees.
   Per Curiam.

Neither the pleadings nor the evidence are in the record.

Counsel for adversary parties differ as to the theory of the complaint and the action. Counsel for appellants assert that the action is to quiet title and for possession; for appellee, that it is to quiet title only. Appellants were plaintiffs below.

The error assigned is that the court erred in its conclusions of law. If the action is to quiet title it should fail because not brought within the fifteen years fixed by the statute, and the judgment should be affirmed. Upon a record so meager, this court is not justified in disturbing the judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.  