State ex rel. Spencer v. Criminal Court of Marion Cnty., 27103.

• Docket Nº: No. 27103.
• Citation: 16 N.E.2d 888, 214 Ind. 551
• Case Date: October 17, 1938
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

214 Ind. 551
16 N.E.2d 888

STATE ex rel. SPENCER
v.
CRIMINAL COURT OF MARION COUNTY et al.

No. 27103.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 17, 1938.

Original action for a writ of prohibition by the State, on the relation of Herbert M. Spencer, etc., against the Criminal Court of Marion County, Indiana, and others, wherein all of the respondents filed a petition to set aside a prior decision and opinion of the Supreme Court, 15 N.E.2d 1020, filed in the action upon the erroneous assumption that no additional responses would be filed.

Petition denied.

[16 N.E.2d 889]

Edward H. Knight and Oscar C. Hagemier, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Fae W. Patrick and H. K. Bachelder, both of Indianapolis, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The temporary writ issued upon the filing of the petition herein was made returnable on July 14, 1938, at 10 o'clock a. m. The writ was directed to the respondents, Criminal Court of Marion County, Honorable Frank P. Baker, Judge, Harold K. Bachelder, Fae W. Patrick, and all other persons acting for, through, or under the order of the Criminal Court of Marion County. On July 8th, the Honorable Frank P. Baker filed a response on behalf of himself as sole judge of the Marion Criminal Court, and upon behalf of that court. Upon the erroneous assumption that no other responses would be filed, an opinion was filed on July 13th. Ind.Sup., 15 N.E.2d 1020. Thereafter, on July 14th, the respondents Bachelder and Patrick filed a response. Thereafter all of the respondents filed a petition to set aside the decision and opinion, and for a hearing, and a brief in support thereof.

In the response of Bachelder and Patrick it is contended that this court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition against the individual respondents, who are neither courts nor judges of courts. Their response otherwise does not differ substantially from the one that was filed. The response of Bachelder and Patrick has been considered in connection with the petition to set aside the decision and opinion, and for a hearing.

It is suggested in the original opinion that Bachelder and Patrick are not necessary parties. The statute (section 3-2201, Burns' Ann.St.1933, section 1090, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934) provides for the issuing of writs of prohibition against courts. It does not mention judges. Without being named in the writ, or being made parties to the proceeding, all judges or officers of courts, and all persons whomsoever, who have notice of the writ, are bound...