Davis v. Pelley

Decision Date16 January 1952
Docket NumberNo. 28777,28777
Citation102 N.E.2d 910,230 Ind. 248
PartiesDAVIS et al. v. PELLEY.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., John Ready O'Connor, George W. Hand, Deputy Attys. Gen., Frances R. Neal, Pros. Atty., Noblesville, for appellant.

N. George Nasser, Terre Haute, Lawrence C. Cloe, Noblesville, George A. Henry Indianapolis, Connor D. Ross, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellee.

BOBBITT, Judge.

On February 17, 1950, appellee filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Hamilton Circuit Court. The petition alleged that appellee was unjustly detained and illegally held in custody by Carey M. Davis, sheriff of Hamilton County, Indiana, under an alleged warrant of arrest issued by the Governor of the State of Indiana as a result of a demand by the State of North Carolina for the extradition of appellee as an alleged fugitive from justice. The issues were closed by proper pleadings and the cause was submitted to the court on the pleadings and evidence adduced at the hearing. On December 22, 1950, the Hamilton Circuit Court entered its finding and judgment releasing appellee from the custody and restraint of appellant, Carey M. Davis. On January 1, 1951 Roland Guilkey succeeded Carey M. Davis as sheriff of Hamilton County. On January 19, 1951 appellant, Roland Guilkey, filed a purported motion for a new trial, which was overruled on February 23, 1951. From this order appellant, Roland Guilkey, attempts to prosecute this appeal to this court.

Transcript of the record was filed in this court on April 18, 1951. On April 26, 1951 appellee filed his special appearance and motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds, among others, that there was no order by the trial court substituting the said Roland Guilkey as defendant before the filing of the motion for a new trial, and that the purported praecipe was not signed by any party to the proceedings.

An examination of the record for the purpose of determining the questions raised in appellee's motion to dismiss discloses that the assignment of errors, omitting caption, reads as follows:

'Assignment of Errors.

'Carey M. Davis, former Sheriff and Roland Guilkey, Sheriff of Hamilton County, Indiana, appellants herein say that there is manifest error in the judgment in this cause, in this to-wit:

'1. The Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Indiana erred in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.

'Wherefore, the appellant prays the proceedings of the Hamilton Circuit Court be in all things reversed.

'(Signed) J. Emmett McManamon

'Attorney General of Indiana'

At no place does the record show the substitution of a new party, or parties, defendant in the court below.

The assignment of errors constitutes appellant's complaint in this court, Second Nat. Bank of Robinson, Ill. v. Scudder, 1937, 212 Ind. 283, 286, 6 N.E.2d 955; Chilcote v. Jordan, 1936, 210 Ind. 587, 588, 4 N.E.2d 186; In re Wiles, 1935, 208 Ind. 271, 275, 195 N.E. 572; it is a requisite to any appeal, and without a proper assignment of errors no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court. In re Wiles, supra; Magill v. Cox, 1859, 12 Ind. 634; Harris v. Davis, 1937, 103 Ind.App. 214, 215, 6 N.E.2d 722; Gary State Bank v. Gary State Bank, Adm'r, 1936, 102 Ind.App. 342, 346, 2 N.E.2d 814; Gedney & Sons, Inc. v. Tinner, 1933, 95 Ind.App. 544, 546, 183 N.E. 886; Debs v. Dalton, 1893, 7 Ind.App. 84, 88, 34 N.E. 236; Rule 2-6, Sup.Ct. of Ind., 1949 Revision.

Although the rules of this court do not specifically provide that the assignment of errors be signed, the general rules of pleading are applicable and it should be signed by the party or his attorney, Estate of Joseph Peden v. Noland, 1873, 45 Ind. 354; State ex rel. Childers v. Delano, 1870, 34 Ind. 52; Riley v. Murray, 1856, 8 Ind. 354, 355; Boes v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 1915, 59 Ind.App. 271, 274, 108 N.E. 174, 109 N.E. 411; and a paper purporting to be an assignment of errors which is not signed by the party, or his attorney, cannot be considered as such on appeal. Rubey v. Hough, 1903, 161 Ind. 203, 204, 67 N.E. 257; Cortez v. Freed, 1938, 105 Ind.App. 640, 16 N.E.2d 969.

It is apparent upon the face of the record that the purported assignment of errors herein is not signed by a party to the action. It is likewise apparent, that said purported assignment of errors is signed by the Attorney General of Indiana in his official capacity.

The question then arises, can the Attorney General, in his official capacity, prosecute an appeal of a habeas corpus proceeding such as the action herein, or can he in such capacity represent a county sheriff as attorney in such appeal?

The office of the Attorney General is one of delegated powers. State ex rel. Young v. Niblack, 1951, 229 Ind. 596, 99 N.E.2d 839, 842. In State ex rel. Young v. Niblack, supra, 229 Ind. at page 602, 99 N.E.2d 839, 841, this court said: 'When a public officer derives his power and authority solely from the statute, 'unless a grant of power and authority can be found in the statute it must be concluded that there is none.''

A careful examination of the statutes discloses no grant of power or authority which would authorize the Attorney General, in his official capacity, to prosecute this attempted appeal, or to represent appellants herein in his capacity as Attorney General of Indiana.

The Acts of 1935, ch. 49, § 10, p....

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Hogan v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Employment and Training Services
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 31 Mayo 1994
    ...or a transcript is not merely a procedural rule, but a jurisdictional requirement. Vail, supra at 131, 93 N.E. 705; Davis v. Pelley (1952) 230 Ind. 248, 102 N.E.2d 910. 5 The filing of a praecipe or an assignment of errors was held to "confer[ ]" or "vest[ ]" jurisdiction with the reviewing......
  • Monon R. Co. v. Citizens of Sherwood Forest Addition, Marion County, 1268A218
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 27 Abril 1970
    ...1943, 221 Ind. 592, 594, 49 N.E.2d 341. See also State ex rel. Young v. Niblack, 1951, 229 Ind. 596, 99 N.E.2d 839; Davis v. Pelley, 1952, 230 Ind. 248, 102 N.E.2d 910.' In the case of Ballman v. Duffecy (1952), 230 Ind. 220, 229, 102 N.E.2d 646, 650, our Supreme Court stated as 'This court......
  • McCrary v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 2 Abril 1961
    ...appellant's complaint in the appeal court, and without a proper assignment of errors there is no jurisdiction. Davis v. Pelley, 1952, 230 Ind. 248, 251, 102 N.E.2d 910; Harr v. State, 1957, 237 Ind. 320, 321, 144 N.E.2d 529, 145 N.E.2d Appellant's paper filed herein entitled, 'Appeal of Ame......
  • Department of Insurance v. Motors Ins. Corp., s. 29383
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 13 Noviembre 1956
    ...authority solely from the statute, 1 and unless a grant of power can be found in the statute he can exercise none. Davis v. Pelley, 1952, 230 Ind. 248, 252, 102 N.E.2d 910; State ex rel. Young v. Niblack, 1951, 229 Ind. 596, 602, 603, 99 N.E.2d 839; Chicago & E.I.R. Co. v. Public Service Co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT