Smith v. The State ex rel. Hamill

• Decision Date: 07 March 1894
• Docket Number: 17,116
• Citation: 36 N.E. 708,137 Ind. 198
• Parties: Smith et al. v. The State, ex rel. Hamill
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

36 N.E. 708

137 Ind. 198

Smith et al. v. The State, ex rel. Hamill

No. 17,116

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 7, 1894

From the Vigo Circuit Court.

Motion to dismiss the appeal overruled.

W. Mack and R. J. Smith, for appellants.

A. G Smith, Attorney-General, M. C. Hamill and G. A. Knight, for appellee.

OPINION

Howard, C. J.

The appellee filed, in this court, a petition to dismiss the appeal herein, for the reason following, to wit "Because of the failure of appellants to comply with rule 31 of this court, in this, to wit, that no marginal notes are placed on the transcript, in their appropriate places, indicating the pleadings, exhibits orders of the court, bills of exceptions, and names of witnesses; nor are there any marginal notes of motions and rulings of the court."

Rule 31 of this court is as follows:

"XXXI. The appellant shall cause the transcript to be paged and the lines of each page to be numbered. He shall also cause marginal notes to be placed on the transcript in their appropriate places, indicating the several parts of the pleadings in the cause, the exhibits, if any, the orders of court, and the bills of exceptions. Where the evidence is set out by deposition or otherwise, the names of the witnesses shall be stated in the margin. The appellant shall also note on the margin all motions and rulings thereon, and he shall also note the instructions given and refused in all cases where questions are made thereon."

By the statute organizing this court, section 1302, R. S. 1881, authority is given to "establish modes of practice which may be necessary in the exercise of its authority, and to make regulations respecting the same, and cause them to be printed."

But it was not necessary that the Legislature should grant such authority. The power of a court to frame rules for the proper conduct of its business is an inherent one, at least so far as concerns the mode of conducting the affairs of the court. Such rules have the force and effect of rules of law; and, consequently, parties and counsel must obey them. They are not merely directory, and may not be ignored or disregarded. It is not only the right, but the duty, of the court to enforce them.

Rules of court are made for the orderly and expeditious conduct of business, and to secure the rights of the parties as well as the convenience of the court. Parties have a right to expect the court to enforce its rules. It may happen, of course, as it does in all cases where general rules prevail, that peculiar circumstances will take a case out of the operation of the rules. Of this, the court must judge, but no rule should be suspended without sufficient cause shown. Elliott's App. Proced., section 7, and notes.

In Martin, Sr., v. Martin, 74 Ind. 207, it is held that the rules of court practice are a part of the law of the land, and that their reasonableness is justified by experience.

Rule 31 of this court is designed both for the use of the appellee to enable him, by a close examination of the record, to discover whether the errors assigned are well...