Taylor v. Meskimen
| Decision Date | 22 September 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 29334,29334 |
| Citation | 128 N.E.2d 872,234 Ind. 485 |
| Parties | A. B. TAYLOR, A. B. Taylor, Trustee, Appellants, v. Emily MESKIMEN, Mary Virginia Stuart, Mary B. Miller, Hoen Berger, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Curtis V. Kimmell, Kimmell & Kimmell, Vincennes, Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, Charles F. O'Connor, James V. Donadio, Geoffrey Segar, Indianapolis, for appellants.
McDonald & McDonald, Princeton, Lewis & Funk, Vincennes, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Gibson Circuit Court. The action was commenced in the Knox Circuit Court and on June 7, 1952, the venue was changed to the Gibson Circuit Court.
On June 19, 1953, a finding and judgment was entered for the appellees, and on October 21, 1953, appellants' motion for a new trial was overruled.
On January 15, 1954, appellants, under Rule 2-2, sought and obtained an extension of time within which to file the transcript and assignment of errors to and including February 18, 1954. This verified petition stated in the first rhetorical paragraph, 'This case is an appeal from a judgment of the Knox Circuit Court.' Appellees filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss the appeal, in substance alleging that appellants had not obtained any order for extension of time to file transcript and assignment of errors on an appeal from any judgment of the Gibson Circuit Court, although a transcript and assignment of errors was filed with the Clerk here on the 17th day of February, 1954.
When a change of venue from one county to another is perfected and the papers and transcript are received by the Clerk of the court to which the venue of the cause is changed, that court acquires full jurisdiction of the cause, and the court of origin has no further jurisdiction in the matter. Toledo, Wabash & Western R. W. Co. v. Wright, 1879, 68 Ind. 586, 600; Hawkins v. State, 1890, 125 Ind. 570, 572, 25 N.E. 818; State ex rel. Price v. Weir, 1936, 210 Ind. 606, 608, 4 N.E.2d 553; Niagara Oil Co. v. Jackson, 1911, 48 Ind.App. 238, 245, 246, 91 N.E. 825.
An appeal is a direct attack on a particular judgment, or appealable interlocutory order. The appeal in this case was from a judgment of the Gibson Circuit Court.
The recognized practice in seeking an extension of time within which to perfect an appeal is to plead the rendition of the particular judgment in the court in which it was entered. Elanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton, Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice § 2478. The order granting the extension of time must be interpreted in the light of the petition upon which it was based, and the order extending time was for an appeal from a judgment of the Knox Circuit Court and not the Gibson Circuit Court. As a result of appellants' petition, the Clerk's record here shows the appeal to be one from the Knox...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogan v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Employment and Training Services
...v. Social Sec. Admin. (1957) 237 Ind. 421, 146 N.E.2d 239; Higginson v. State (1957) 237 Ind. 256, 142 N.E.2d 435; Taylor v. Meskimen (1955) 234 Ind. 485, 128 N.E.2d 872; Dawson v. Wright (1955) 234 Ind. 626, 129 N.E.2d 796.In the following case, the Supreme Court held that failure to file ......
-
Raper v. Union Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Evansville
...challenge the specific decision of the lower court. Plank v. Hinkle (1919), 73 Ind.App. 663, 125 N.E. 479; Taylor et al. v. Meskimen et al. (1955), 234 Ind. 485, 128 N.E.2d 872. The conclusions set forth above clearly state that Reed was incompetent when the account contract was made, and t......
-
Eggers v. Wright
...Ind. 256, 142 N.E.2d 435; Dawson et al. v. Wright, Mayor, etc., et al. (1955), 234 Ind. 626, 129 N.E.2d 796; Taylor et al. v. Meskimen et al. (1955), 234 Ind. 485, 128 N.E.2d 872. A mistake or miscalculation of time by counsel who have a responsibility to perfect an appeal as grounds for di......
-
Schilling v. Ritter, 19925
...239; Higginson v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 256, 142 N.E.2d 435; Dawson v. Wright (1955), 234 Ind. 626, 129 N.E.2d 796; Taylor v. Meskimen (1953), 234 Ind. 485, 128 N.E.2d 872; Wenzel v. National Refining Co. (1953), 123 Ind.App. 699, 114 N.E.2d 562; Kiradlo v. Pisula (1953), 232 Ind. 659, 115......