Epstein v. State
Decision Date | 08 October 1920 |
Docket Number | 23,637 |
Citation | 128 N.E. 353,190 Ind. 693 |
Parties | Epstein v. State of Indiana |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of May 25, 1920, Reported at: 190 Ind. 693.
Appellant in his petition for rehearing insists that § 3, Acts 1917 p. 523, § 691c Burns' Supp. 1918, requires this court to consider the case upon its merits, although appellant failed to comply with cl. 5 of Rule 22 of this court, which requires that the briefs shall set out a concise statement of so much of the record as presents every error and exception relied on. In other words, he contends that by statute the legislature abolished the rule named. In his brief he says: In support of his contention appellant cites § 1373 Burns 1914, § 1302 R. S. 1881, and Parkison v. Thompson (1905), 164 Ind. 609 73 N.E. 109, 3 Ann. Cas. 677. Section 1373 Burns 1914 supra, provides that the Supreme Court shall have authority:
Appellant's contention is that the court derives its authority to make rules from this statute. While this statute grants the court the power to frame rules, it is quite clear on principle, as well as upon authority, that the court had such power without the statute. This court is a constitutional court, and as such receives its essential and inherent powers, rights and jurisdiction from the Constitution, and not from the legislature, and it has power to prescribe rules for its own direct government independent of legislative enactment. See Elliott, Appellate Procedure § 7; Smythe v. Boswell (1888), 117 Ind. 365, 20 N.E. 263; Ex parte Griffiths (1889), 118 Ind. 83, 20 N.E. 513, 3 L. R. A. 398, 10 Am. St. 107.
In Parkison v. Thompson, supra, cited by appellant, the court, in discussing a statute relative to the consideration of the evidence on appeal, said:
In Solimeto v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 170, 122 N.E. 578, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial