Jones v. Stawicki
| Decision Date | 24 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 28973,28973 |
| Citation | 233 Ind. 272,111 N.E.2d 718 |
| Parties | JONES et al. v. STAWICKI et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Albert L. Doyle, Mishawaka, for appellants.
Roland Obenchain, Jr., Jones, Obenchain & Butler, South Bend, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the appellees on their petition to adopt a child whereby the child was adopted as the child and heir of appellees. The appeal was taken to the Appellate Court, but that court, on motion of appellees transferred the cause to this court under Clause 1 of § 4-214, Burns' 1946 Replacement. 1 We set the appeal for argument on the merits, but upon questioning of counsel we ascertained that the constitutional issue was never raised in the trial court.
It is to be noted that under § 4-214, Burns' 1946 Replacement, the constitutional issue must be 'duly presented.' Ross, Rec. v. Terre Haute, etc., Traction Co., 1930, 202 Ind. 698, 700, 171 N.E. 665. See also Prunk v. Indianapolis Redevelopment Comm., 1950, 228 Ind. 579, 93 N.E.2d 171. This holding is not in conflict with Marion School Twp., etc. v. Smith, 1939, 215 Ind. 586, 21 N.E.2d 412, since from the record in that case and the opinion it is evident that the constitutional issue was presented to the trial court.
This appeal is transferred to the Appellate Court of Indiana as per order filed herewith.
1 'All cases in which there is in question, and such question is duly presented, either the validity of a franchise or the validity of an ordinance of a municipal corporation, or the constitutionality of a statute, state or federal, or the rights guaranteed by the state or federal constitution.' Clause 1, § 4-214, Burns' 1946 Replacement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Scott, 29512
...supposed to be violated should be pointed out.' Levy v. State, 1903, 161 Ind. 251, 256, 68 N.E. 172, 174. See also Jones v. Stawicki, 1953, 233 Ind. 272, 273, 111 N.E.2d 718. This is not a case where we construe a statute by avoiding a construction that might make it unconstitutional, or wh......
-
Thompson v. City of Aurora
...be presented for the first time in a motion for a new trial. Knapp v. State, 1932, 203 Ind. 610, 181 N.E. 517; Jones et ux v. Stawicki et ux., 1953, 233 Ind. 272, 111 N.E.2d 718." It is our opinion that Linville, supra, is dispositive of this issue and Thompsons' position cannot be Judgment......
-
De Schamps v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Kokomo
...be presented for the first time in a motion for a new trial. Knapp v. State, 1932, 203 Ind. 610, 181 N.E. 517; Jones et ux. v. Stawicki et ux., 1953, 233 Ind. 272, 111 N.E.2d 718. The judgment of the trial court should be and is hereby BOBBITT, C. J., and ARTERBURN, J., concur. ACHOR and LA......
-
Dudley v. State
...objection for the first time on appeal. Tyler v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 419, 236 N.E.2d 815; Jones et ux. v. Stwicki, et ux. (1953), 233 Ind. 272, 111 N.E.2d 718. Separation of witnesses is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and such rulings will not be disturbed unless there......