Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp., 18315

• Decision Date: 12 June 1953
• Docket Number: No. 18315,18315
• Citation: 123 Ind.App. 593,112 N.E.2d 868
• Parties: MATLAW CORP. v. WAR DAMAGE CORP.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 868

112 N.E.2d 868

123 Ind.App. 593

MATLAW CORP. v. WAR DAMAGE CORP.

No. 18315.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

June 12, 1953.

Walter Myers, Jr., Indianapolis, Jay E. Darlington, Hammond, for appellant.

Marshall E. Hanley, U. S. Atty., Indianapolis, Holmes Baldridge, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C. (Edward H. Hickey and Irving Malchman, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee's petition for a rehearing of this appeal was filed on the last day permissible under the rules. On the same day a copy thereof was mailed to counsel for the appellant and received by him the following day. Rule 2-13 provides:

'Within the time allowed for filing motions and petitions, and briefs in support thereof, copies shall be served upon the parties affected, or their attorneys of record, and record, and proof of such service shall be made at the time of filing or promptly thereafter. (Our emphasis).'

This rule has been held to apply to petitions for rehearings and a failure to comply therewith requires a dismissal of the petition. Norling v. Bailey, 1951, 121 Ind.App. 457, 98 N.E.2d 513, 99 N.E.2d 439.

Concerning an appellant's brief we have held that the mailing of a copy thereof to opposing counsel on the last day for filing the same is not a compliance with Rule 2-13 unless it was received by him on the same day it was mailed. Wright v. Hines, 1945, 116 Ind.App. 150, 62 N.E.2d 884; Hoover v. Shaffer, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 399, 80 N.E. 569. No distinction between a brief and a petition for a rehearing can be drawn as the time for serving a copy of either upon the opposing party or his attorney is governed by the same rule.

The petition for a rehearing is dismissed.