Langford v. De Armond, 20113
| Decision Date | 20 August 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 20113,20113 |
| Citation | 137 Ind.App. 439,209 N.E.2d 737 |
| Parties | Estic C. LANDGORD, Mary C. Langford, Appellants, v. Grace B. DE ARMOND, William B. De Armond, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
[137 INDAPP 440] Kelley, Arnold & Kelley, by Paul W. Kelley, Anderson, for appellants.
Wagoner & Cochran, Marion, Grace B. De Armond, William E. De Armond, Anderson, for appellees.
[137 INDAPP 448] SMITH, Judge.
The appellees on behalf of their petition for rehearing insist that the Bill of Exceptions containing the evidence is not properly in the record for the reason that the clerk's certificate to the transcript does not authenticate such bill of exceptions. The appellees submit that Rule 2-3 of the Supreme Court requires that every bill of exceptions tendered, prior to the filing of the transcript in the Appellate Court, shall be filed with the Clerk, which filing may be evidenced by the Clerk's certificate.
[137 INDAPP 449] The appellees argue that the Appellate Court recited facts which appear in the bill of exceptions, not shown filed with the Clerk, which the Court used as a basis for reversal of the judgment and that by reason of this fact the appellees are being denied the equal protection of the law within the constitution of the State of Indiana as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Assuming, without deciding, that a defect exists in the clerk's certificate, the appellees are not now in a position to raise the question. On April 30, 1964, the appellees petitioned for and received an extension of time to file their answer brief. Rule 2-16 of the Supreme Court requires the petition to 'state facts showing that the Court in which the cause is pending has jurisdiction and that the brief will be on the merits.' (Emphasis supplied.) An objection that the clerk's certificate to the bill of exceptions is not in the record does not go to the merits of the appeal and by their petition for extension of time the alleged error was waived. Gamble v. Lewis (1949), 227 Ind. 455, 85 N.E.2d 629; Brodt v. Duthie (1933), 97 Ind.App. 692, 186 N.E. 893.
Petition for rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leuck v. Goetz, 471A79
...138 Ind.App. 214, 213 N.E.2d 339; Central Indiana R.R. Co. v. Mikesell (1965) 139 Ind.App. 478, 211 N.E.2d 794; Langford v. DeArmond (1965) 137 Ind.App. 448, 209 N.E.2d 737. Although the aforementioned decisions were governed by former Indiana Supreme Court Rule 2--16, the language in that ......
-
Langford v. Anderson Banking Co., 469
...That case was appealed to this court in Langford, et al. v. DeArmond, et al., 137 Ind.App. 439, 208 N.E.2d 692 (1965), reh. den., 209 N.E.2d 737. In that case this court in effect declared that the tax sale was void and that the title to said real estate was quieted in the Appellants The Ap......
-
Central Indiana Ry. Co. v. Mikesell
...is not in the record does not go to the merits of the appeal and is waived by a petition for extension of time. Langford v. DeArmond (1965), Ind.App., 209 N.E.2d 737, Vol. 6, #4 Ind.Dec. Where the courts have appeared technical in inadvertent matters there usually has been no effort to corr......