Gary Rys. Co. v. Kleinknight
| Decision Date | 21 October 1941 |
| Docket Number | 16683. |
| Citation | 36 N.E.2d 939,110 Ind.App. 72 |
| Parties | GARY RYS. CO. v. KLEINKNIGHT. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Draper & Draper, of Gary, for appellant.
Davis & Eichhorn and Gilbert Gruenberg, all of Gary, for appellee.
This action was begun by the appellee to recover damages from the appellant because of personal injury sustained by her in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding and one of the appellant's street cars.
The record in this appeal was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts on July 5, 1940, and, upon appellant's petition for extension of time, the appellant was granted time in which to file appellant's brief to and including September 5, 1940. The record further discloses that nine copies of appellant's brief were filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts on September 5, 1940. The record further discloses that the appellant's briefs were filed in the office of the Clerk by the printer, and these briefs were accompanied by an affidavit of the printer to the effect that on the 5th day of September, 1940, at the direction of appellant's counsel one copy of appellant's brief was deposited in the United States mail, addressed to appellee's counsel at Gary Indiana, postage prepaid. This brief was not received by appellee's counsel until September 9, 1940.
A motion to dismiss this appeal was filed by the appellee on September 17, 1940, assigning as a reason that no proof showing service of a copy of appellant's brief upon the appellee was made within the time allowed for filing the same. This motion was overruled by this court on September 27, 1940.
The case is now before us for consideration upon its merits, but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of this State as announced in the case of James C. Curtis & Co. v Emmerling, decided January 20, 1941, and reported in 31 N.E. 2d 57, at page 58, it is our opinion that this motion to dismiss should have been sustained. The rule applicable to this case is part of Rule 20, adopted January 1, 1937, which reads as follows: "Not less than nine copies of each brief, two of which, if typewritten, shall be ribbon copies, shall be filed with the clerk together with proof of service of a ribbon copy upon opposing party or counsel."
It is the appellant's contention that the deposit of a brief in the United States mail is sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagoner's Estate, In re, 19,459
...deliver within the time allowed for filing, the requirements of the rule for filing briefs have not been met. Gary Railways Co. v. Kleinknight, 1941, 110 Ind.App. 72, 36 N.E.2d 939; Wright v. Hines, 1945, 116 Ind.App. 150, 62 N.E.2d 884; Hoover v. Shaffer, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 399, 80 N.E.2d ......
-
Fisher v. Driskell
...following ruling precedents of the Supreme and Appellate Courts: James C. Curtis & Co. v. Emmerling, supra; Gary Railways Co. v. Kleinknight, 1941, 110 Ind.App. 72, 36 N.E.2d 939; Wright v. Hines, 1945, 116 Ind.App. 150, 62 N.E.2d 884; Hoover v. Shaffer, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 399, 80 N.E.2d 56......
-
Wright v. Hines
...is received by them on said day. James C. Curtis & Co. v. Emmerling, 1941, 218 Ind. 172, 31 N.E.2d 57, 986;Gary Railways Company v. Kleinknight, 1941, 110 Ind.App. 72, 36 N.E.2d 939;Reasor v. Reasor, Ind.App. 1945, 60 N.E.2d 536. The appellees' motion to dismiss must be sustained and this a......
-
Hoover v. Shaffer
...as the one with which we are here concerned’. This Court has followed this ruling in the following cases: Gary Railways Company v. Kleinknight, 1941, 110 Ind.App. 72, 36 N.E.2d 939;Reasor v. Reasor, 1945, 115 Ind.App. 535, 60 N.E.2d 536;Wright et al. v. Hines et al., 1945, 116 Ind.App. 150,......