Stillabower v. Lizart
| Decision Date | 25 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 19310,No. 1,19310,1 |
| Citation | 130 Ind.App. 65,161 N.E.2d 195 |
| Parties | Harold STILLABOWER, George T. Tiller, Appellants, v. Vangel S. LIZART, Providence Mary Lizart, Appellees |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Charles Mendenhall, William G. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Gerald W. Ohrn, Albert W. Ewbank, Indianapolis, for appellees.
This matter is now before us on a Petition for a Rehearing. The Petition for Rehearing affirmatively shows that the appellants herein have apparently employed new counsel, and, at this time, is attempting to attack solely the competency of the appellants' original attorney.
The appellants herein seek permission to file an amended brief anew because of the lack of skill, the negligence, incompetence and inadvertence of former counsel. This, of course, we cannot do. A rehearing will not be granted to permit a party to file additional briefs, or briefs anew. Rownd v. State, 1898, 152 Ind. 39, 51 N.E. 914, rehearing denied 152 Ind. 39, 52 N.E. 395; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate, 1890, 127 Ind. 472, 26 N.E. 77, rehearing denied 217 Ind. 472, 26 N.E. 1009.
A petition for rehearing is a request to the court to revise its own action by correcting errors and modifying or setting aside its judgment. Parker v. State ex rel. Powell, 1892, 133 Ind. 178, 32 N.E. 836, rehearing denied 133 Ind. 178, 33 N.E. 119, 18 L.R.A. 567.
Rule 2-22 of the Supreme Court of Indiana, which, of course, has the force and effect of law, provides:
The object of a petition for a rehearing is to point out mistakes of law or of fact, or both, which the losing party contends were made by the court in arriving at its decision. Its purpose is not to request the court generally to examine all the questions in the record or all of the questions decided against the party filing it. Lesh v. Johnston Furniture Co., 1938, 214 Ind. 176, 13 N.E.2d 708, motion denied 214 Ind. 176, 14 N.E.2d 537.
For the reasons hereinabove set forth, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diggs v. Bobich, 19319
...Hayes v. Adams (1943), 221 Ind. 480, 49 N.E.2d 345; Stillabower et al. v. Lizart et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App. 65, 159 N.E.2d 144, 145, 161 N.E.2d 195; Wischmeyer et al. v. Fisher et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App. 245, 161 N.E.2d 485, 486, 163 N.E.2d Nowhere in the argument portion of appellants' b......
-
Naked City, Inc. v. State
...423, 193 N.E.2d 359; Daviess-Martin Co. etc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm. (1961), 132 Ind.App. 610, 175 N.E.2d 439; Stillabower et al. v. Lizart et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App. 65, 161 N.E.2d 195. By dismissing the State's petition for rehearing as being premature, the majority is foreclosing any opport......
-
Hayes v. Pennick
...this court as well as the party of an appeal. Stillabower et al. v. Lizart et al. (1959), 130 Ind.App.[137 INDAPP 57] 65, 159 N.E.2d 144, 161 N.E.2d 195, (rehearing denied, transfer denied). The appellant's original brief does not undertake to set out the pleadings verbatim or in sufficient......
-
Flick v. Simpson, 967
...the courts of review as well as the parties. * * * Stillabower et al. v. Lizart et al. (1959) 130 Ind.App. 65, 67, 159 N.E.2d 144, 145, 161 N.E.2d 195.' State ex rel. Spelde v. Minker, Trustee, etc., 244 Ind. 421, 422, 193 N.E.2d 365 (1963). See also Eggers v. Wright, Ind., 16 Ind.Dec. 669,......