Schilling v. Ritter, 19925
Decision Date | 03 January 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 19925,19925 |
Citation | 186 N.E.2d 887,134 Ind.App. 168 |
Parties | John A. SCHILLING, Appellant, v. Melvin RITTER, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Murray, Mannon, Fairchild & Stewart, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Armstrong, Gause, Hudson & Kightlinger, Indianapolis, for appellee.
This matter is an attempted appeal from the Shelby Circuit Court wherein the appellant herein, John Schilling, was the plaintiff below, and the appellee herein, Melvin Ritter, was the defendant below.
It appears that judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee herein on the 26th day of May, 1962, and that on the 22nd day of June, 1962, the appellant filed his motion for a new trial which was overruled by the trial court on June 23, 1962. Thereafter, appellant filed a praecipe with the Clerk of the Shelby Circuit Court to initiate this attempted appeal.
This matter is now before us upon the appellant's petition for extension of time within which to file transcript and assignment of errors, together with affidavit and memorandum in support thereof. To the appellant's petition for extension of time to file transcript and assignment of errors, the appellee timely filed his objections to said petition averring, among other things, that the appellant's petition for extension of time within which to file transcript and assignment of errors was not filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts until the 23rd day of October, 1962, and, therefore, was not filed within the ninety (90) day period from the date of the judgment or the ruling of the motion for a new trial.
We judicially know that Rule 2-2 of the Supreme Court of Indiana provides:
We do not deem it necessary to cite authority that the Rules of the Supreme Court have the force and effect of law and the pertinent part of the aforesaid Rule provides, in substance, that an appeal must be perfected within ninety days from the date of judgment or the ruling on the motion for a new trial, unless the statute fixes a shorter time or an extension of the time is granted by the appellate tribunal on the proper petition.
The general rule of law is that the failure to file a transcript of record and assignment of errors within the time limited by law or the Supreme Court rule unless said time is extended by the order of the appellate tribunal, the appeal will be dismissed, as timely filing is jurisdictional. See, § 2524, Flanagan, Wiltrout & Hamilton's Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice; Joyner, etc. v. The Housing Authority, etc., (1959), 130 Ind.App. 167, 162 N.E.2d 685; Meier v. Social Security Administration (1957), 237 Ind. 421, 146 N.E.2d 239; Higginson v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 256, 142 N.E.2d 435; Dawson v. Wright (195...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Monon R. Co. v. Citizens of Sherwood Forest Addition, Marion County, 1268A218
...v. Parker GMC Truck Sales, Inc., supra; City of Indianapolis v. Hoffman (1966), 247 Ind. 228, 213 N.E.2d 700; Schilling v. Ritter (1963), 134 Ind.App. 168, 186 N.E.2d 887; Dawson, et al. v. Wright, Mayor, etc., et al. (1955), 234 Ind. 626, 129 N.E.2d 796; Wiltrout, Indiana Practice, Vol. 3,......
-
Means v. Seif Material Handling Co., 2--672A27
...I believe this court to have the inherent power to permit belated civil appeals for good cause shown. In Schilling v. Ritter (1963) 134 Ind.App. 168, 171, 172, 186 N.E.2d 887, 889, the Appellate Court 'It is true that this court has inherent power to grant time to perfect and appeal even af......
-
Indiana Personnel Bd. v. Parkman, 20675
...prior to the expiration of said time, and an appeal may be dismissed as time of filing is jurisdictional. See Schilling v. Ritter (1963), 134 Ind.App. 168, 186 N.E.2d 887; Billhymer v. Peerless Corp. (1965), Ind.App., 212 N.E.2d 403; City of Indianapolis v. Hoffman (1966), Ind., 213 N.E.2d ......
-
Colbert v. Allied Concord Financial Corp., 470A69
...140 Ind.App. 475, 223 N.E.2d 777, 778; City of Indianapolis v. Hoffman (1966), 247 Ind. 228, 213 N.E.2d 700; Schilling v. Ritter (1963), 134 Ind.App. 168, 186 N.E.2d 887; Dawson, et al. v. Wright, Mayor, etc., et al., supra; Wiltrout, Indiana Practice, Vol. 3, § 2524, p. 293, and cases The ......