Slinkard v. Wilson, 18289
| Decision Date | 24 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 18289,18289 |
| Citation | 125 Ind.App. 76,105 N.E.2d 342 |
| Parties | SLINKARD v. WILSON et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Vincent Kelley, Anderson, Emmanuel H. Baugh, Evansville, Sanford Trippet, Princeton, for appellant.
Ortmeyer, Bamberger, Ortmeyer & Foreman, Evansville, Gerald E. Hall, Princeton, for Homer R. Wilson.
Waller, McGinnis & Merrill, Evansville, McDonald & McDonald, Princeton, for Glenn Babb.
The appellant asks us for a writ of certiorari directing the judge, clerk and reporter of the Gibson Circuit Court to correct the general bill of exceptions containing the evidence in this cause by supplying certain specified omissions. This we have no power to do but such bill, like other parts of the record, may be corrected nunc pro tunc upon proper application to the trial court in order that it may speak the truth. Community State Bank of Royal Center v. Durbin, 1950, Ind.App., 95 N.E.2d 310. When such application is filed in the trial court a petition should be filed here asking that the transcript containing the bill of exceptions be returned to the trial court for use at the hearing of the application and if the application is granted the court orders the bill amended to speak the truth. The corrected bill may then be brought here by a writ of certiorari and thereupon it supersedes the erroneous record. 2 Watson's Works Practice 668, § 2097. Exhibits suitable for incorporation in the bill but omitted therefrom are not a part of the record even though introduced in evidence and they can be brought in only through procedure above indicated. Wabash, etc., Cement Co. v. Evarts, 1923, 79 Ind.App. 371, 135 N.E. 491, 135 N.E. 801. Exhibits unsuitable for incorporation in the bill, such as clothes, guns, machinery, etc., should be correctly described therein. Bridgewater v. State, 1899, 153 Ind. 560, 55 N.E. 737; Morgantown Mfg. Co. v. Hicks, 1909, 43 Ind.App. 32, 86 N.E. 856. Failure to so describe such an exhibit can be corrected only by the trial court.
The appellant's petition for certiorari also calls our attention to the fact that the clerk's certificate attached to the bill contains no statement to the effect that said bill was filed after it was signed and approved by the trial judge and asks us to order it so corrected. The court's orderbook entry of November 5, 1951, shows that the bill, having been examined, approved and signed by the trial judge, was filed on that date. This is sufficient to bring the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mink
...directed verdict in their favor, and that the refusal of the trial court to so do was reversible error. In Slinkard v. Babb, Wilson (1954), 125 Ind.App. 76, at page 80, 105 N.E.2d 342, 112 N.E.2d 876, at page 878, 117 N.E.2d 564 (Transfer denied), this court said: 'It is well settled that t......
-
New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Mercantile Nat. Bank of Hammond
... ... Jackson Hill Coal & Coke Co. v. Bales et al., 1915, 183 Ind. 276, 279, 108 N.E. 962. Slinkard v. Babb, 1953, 125 Ind.App. 76, [105 N.E.2d 342] 112 N.E.2d 876, 878, [117 N.E.2d 564] and cases ... ...
-
Wade v. Three Sisters, Inc.
... ... Jackson Hill Coal & Cock Co. v. Bales [et al.], 1915, 183 Ind. 276, 279, 108 N.E. 692. Slinkard v. Babb, 1953, 125 Ind. App. 76, 112 N.E.2d 876, 878 [117 N.E.2d 564], and cases there cited ... ...
-
Galbreath v. Engineering Const. Corp., 271A34
...made possible is not a proximate cause of such injury. Kelley v. Skeen (1968) 143 Ind.App. 387, 240 N.E.2d 837; Slinkard v. Babb, Wilson (1953) 125 Ind.App. 76, 105 N.E.2d 342, 112 N.E.2d 876, 117 N.E.2d 564. But as stated in Milwaukee & St. P.R. Co. v. Kellogg (1877) 94 U.S. 469, 474--475,......