Coburn v. The Whitaker and Garrett Lumber Company

• Decision Date: 27 November 1894
• Docket Number: 1,362
• Parties: COBURN v. THE WHITAKER AND GARRETT LUMBER COMPANY
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

38 N.E. 1094

12 Ind.App. 340

COBURN v. THE WHITAKER AND GARRETT LUMBER COMPANY

No. 1,362

Court of Appeals of Indiana

November 27, 1894

Petition for rehearing overruled March 12, 1895.

From the Marion Superior Court.

Motion to dismiss sustained.

J Coburn, for appellant.

S Claypool and J. W. Claypool, for appellee.

OPINION

LOTZ, J.

This case is before us on a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The record discloses that the judgment from which the appeal is prosecuted was rendered on the 5th day of June, 1893. A term-time appeal was prayed for and a bond given and approved by the court, but a transcript was not filed with the clerk of this court within sixty days, as provided by section 650 R. S. 1894.

The appellant then attempted to prosecute an appeal after the term, as provided by section 652, R. S. 1894, and, on May 17, 1894, filed with the clerk of this court a transcript, assignment of errors, and supersedeas brief, and, on May 28, filed a supersedeas bond and obtained a writ of supersedeas. Nothing further was done until September 12, 1894, when the clerk issued notice to the appellant of intention to dismiss the appeal under rule thirty-five. On September 13th, the appellant caused notice of the appeal to be issued and served upon appellee's attorneys of record.

The statute, section 645, R. S. 1894, limits the time in which appeals may be taken to this court to within one year from the time the judgment is rendered. The appeal must be fully perfected within that time. The filing of the transcript alone within that time is not sufficient. The transcript must be filed and notice of the appeal issued to the appellee within one year from the rendition of the judgment. Bank, etc., v. Inman, 133 Ind. 287, 32 N.E. 885; Holloran v. Midland R. W. Co., 129 Ind. 274, 28 N.E. 549.

No notice was issued within the year and upon the face of the record the motion to dismiss should be sustained. The appellant, however, insists that he was misled by the acts of appellee's attorneys. It is made to appear by affidavit that appellee's attorneys obtained the transcript and papers filed in the cause from the clerk on the 19th day of June, 1894, and retained them in their possession until the 12th day of September; that on two occasions within that time appellant's attorney called at the clerk's office and made inquiry if counsel for appellee had done anything in the case and was informed that appellee'...