Thе appellant brought suit against the appellee to quiet title to a tract оf real estate in Kosciusko County. To this complaint the appellee filed two separate paragraphs of answer alleging affirmative matter and a third рaragraph in general denial. Appellant filed a reply in general denial tо the two paragraphs alleging affirmative matter. Appellee also filed а cross-complaint against appellant praying that his title be quieted to the same tract of real estate. Appellant filed an answer in general denial tо this cross-complaint.
On these issues the cause was submitted to the court and a jury for triаl resulting in a verdict in favor of the appellee on his cross-complaint and judgmеnt was rendered thereon in his favor. Within due time the appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and this appeal followed. The errors assigned for reversal are the overruling of appellant’s motion for judgment on the jury’s answers to the interrogatories and the overruling of her motion for a new trial.
We are met at thе threshold of a consideration of this appeal upon its merits by a vigorous chаllenge of the *310 appellant’s brief by appellee to present any questiоn for our examination because of the failure of appellant to comply with the rules of this court adopted November 1, 1933, effective November 15, 1933, in its preрaration.
The appellee asserts that in that portion of her brief devoted to a concise statement of so much of the record as fully presents evеry error and exception relied upon for reversal referring to the lines and рages of the record, appellant does not show in her brief that her motion for judgment on answers to the interrogatories is in the record by reference to the lines and pages of the record, nor that such motion was ever filed or presentеd to the trial court, nor that the trial court ever overruled such motion, nor that the аppellant ever reserved any exception at the time thereof to the trial court’s ruling on such motion. That the appellant’s motion for a new trial is in the record by reference to the lines and pages of the record, nor that such motiоn was ever filed and presented to the trial court, nor that the trial court ever оverruled said motion, except by participial expression, and then without reference to thp lines and pages of the record, nor that the appellant ever reserved any exception at the time to the court’s ruling on such motion, giving the lines and pages of the record where it could be found. A careful examinatiоn of appellant’s brief sustains appellee’s assertions.
Notwithstanding this attack аnd the liberality of this court, upon timely application being made for the purpоse to permit the amendment of briefs and to correct alleged mistakes or supply defects therein, the appellant has not seen fit to avail himself of that privilege.
It has heretofore been and now is the policy of this court to plaсe a liberal construction on its rules, to the end that causes on appeаl may be determined on their merits rather than on questions of procedure. But we
*311
cannot ignore the fact that the court as well as litigants therein are bound by its rules.
Willett
v.
Larch
(1920),
Section five of rule 21 of this court as adopted November 1, 1933, makes it obligatory upon appellant to set out in her brief the pages and lines of the transcriрt where it shows that the motions for judgment on the interrogatories and for a new trial werе filed by her, the ruling of the court thereon, and that she saved an exception to such rulings at the time they were made, thus saving the court the necessity of searching the record. “Appellant is required to state so much of the record as fully presents every error and exception relied upon, referring- to the pages and lines of the transcript.”
Martin
v.
State
(1931),
No question being presented the judgment is affirmed.