Monroe v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 20044
| Decision Date | 22 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 20044,20044 |
| Citation | 193 N.E.2d 260,135 Ind.App. 257 |
| Parties | Henry M. MONROE, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, and Peerless Pump Company, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James Manahan, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Leland B. Cross, Jr., William R, Riggs, Indianapolis, for appellee Peerless Pump Co.; Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, Indianapolis, of counsel.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Edgar S. Husted, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division.
On this, the 14th day of October, 1963, we have before us the motion, filed on September 27, 1963, of appellee, Peerless Pump Company, to dismiss this appeal upon the following grounds:
1. That this case involves the Appellant's appeal from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division mailed June 26, 1963.
2. That the Appellant filed Appellant's Original Brief with this Court on September 20, 1963, but wholly failed to serve a copy of such brief on this Appellee as required by Rules 2-13 and 2-19 of the Supreme Court prior to filing same or at any other time and no proof of service on this Appellee was ever filed.
3. That for purposes of this motion, this Court has jurisdiction to grant this motion.
With said motion to dismiss, and on said September 27, 1953, there was likewise filed by counsel for said appellee, Peerless Pump Company, verified proof of service of said appellee's motion to dismiss and copies of brief in support thereof, on Henry M. Monroe, appellant herein, and to his counsel of record, and to a Deputy Attorney General of Indiana, as well, representing said Board of Review, together with receipts for certified mail which shows the posting on September 26, 1963. See Rule 2-13.
Appellant has made no showing that the statements contained in appellee's said motion are erroneous; nor has appellant, so far as the record of this court is concerned, made any effort to correct the asserted defect in this appeal by serving a copy of its brief on the said appellee, Peerless Pump Company. Furthermore, the record before us shows that service was had only on the Attorney General of Indiana, counsel for said Review Board, one of the appellees, who acknowledged receipt of such service. The record does not show that service was had on the other appellee, Peerless Pump Company, or its counsel.
Under authority of Rule 2-19 which, among...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Dillon v. Shepp
...Stephens v. Review Board of Indiana Employ. Sec. Div. (1965), 137 Ind.App. 84, 205 N.E.2d 164; Monroe v. Review Board of Ind. Employ. Sec. Div. (1965), 135 Ind.App. 257, 193 N.E.2d 260; Tolbert v. Kern (1965),139 Ind.App. 81, 210 N.E.2d 383, 213 N.E.2d 723; Cole v. Pierson (1966),140 Ind.Ap......
-
Cole v. Pierson
...or by depositing in the mail or express) within the time allowed for filing briefs.' See also Monroe v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1963), 135 Ind.App. 257, 193 N.E.2d 260. A failure to serve a brief on all the adverse parties or their counsel within the allotted time for the filing ......
-
Stephens v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...192 N.E.2d 734; James C. Curtis & Co. v. Emmerling (1941) 218 Ind. 172, 31 N.E.2d 57, 31 N.E.2d 986; Monroe v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1963) 135 Ind.App. 257, 193 N.E.2d 260; Dawson v. Review Board, Inc. Emp. Sec. Div. (1961) 132 Ind.App. 1, 175 N.E.2d 35; Ind. Tr. & Savings Bank......
-
Turner v. Williams, 20287
...192 N.E.2d 734; James C. Curtis & Co. v. Emmerling (1941), 218 Ind. 172, 31 N.E.2d 57, 31 N.E.2d 986; Monroe v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1963), 135 Ind.App. 257, 193 N.E.2d 260; Dawson v. Review Board, Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1961), 132 Ind.App. 1, 175 N.E.2d 35; Indiana Tr. & Saving......