78 Ind. App. 140 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1922
— Appellee averred in his complaint that appellants were engaged in the business of selling Ford automobiles in the city of Hammond, Indiana; that in October, 1917, appellee was employed by appellants as a salesman to sell automobiles on commissions to be paid
Appellants answered in two paragraphs, the first being a general denial and the second a set-off, and the cause was submitted to a jury for trial which'returned a verdict in favor of appellee for $400, upon which verdict, after appellants’ motion for a new trial was overruled, judgment was rendered. This appeal is from said judgment.
The only error assigned is that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial, for reasons presented and hereinafter discussed.
Each litigant challenges the sufficiency of opposing counsel’s brief, but we hold that the briefs each show a good faith effort to comply with the rules of the court and the appeal will be considered on its merits.
Appellants earnestly contend that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence. We have carefully examined appellants’ statement of the evidence in their brief and the supplement thereto as found in appellee’s brief, and have no hesitation in saying that the evidence is ample to sustain the verdict of the jury. Nothing can be gained by setting out or discussing such evidence in detail.
We find no reversible error. The judgment is affirmed.