Wright v. Hines
| Decision Date | 11 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 17396.,17396. |
| Citation | 116 Ind.App. 150,62 N.E.2d 884 |
| Parties | WRIGHT et al. v. HINES et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Hendricks Circuit Court; Omar O'Harrow, Special Judge.
Action between James S. Wright and another, for themselves and all other creditors of the Peoples Bank of Whitestown, Ind., against Russell B. Hines and others. From an adverse judgment, James S. Wright and another, for themselves and all other creditors of the Peoples Bank of Whitestown, Ind. appeal. On appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal.
Appellees' motion sustained and appeal dismissed.Archie J. Kahl, of Danville, and Milton E. Craig and Walter G. Todd, both of Indianapolis, for appellants.
Adney & Adney, of Lebanon, Hume & Gaston, of Danville, and Harding & Harding, of Crawfordsville, for appellees.
In this case the transeript was filed and cause submitted on June 18, 1945. On July 18, 1945, the appellants were granted an extension of time to and including September 18, 1945, in which to file their brief. On September 18, 1945, appellants filed their brief with the clerk of this court and on said last mentioned date mailed from Indianapolis to the attorneys of appellees at Crawfordsville, Ind., notice of the filing of their brief and a ribbon copy thereof. This notice was received by appellees' attorneys on September 19, 1945.
Appellees have filed their motion to dismiss this appeal for the reason that appellants have failed to comply with the rules of the Supreme Court. Rule 2-19, Rules of the Supreme Court (1943 Revision), provides, in part, as follows: .
Rule 2-13 requires the appellant to serve upon the appellee copy of his brief within the time allowed for filing such brief. The mailing of such brief to appellees' attorneys on the last day for filing is not a compliance with this rule unless the brief is received by them on said day. James C. Curtis & Co. v. Emmerling, 1941, 218 Ind. 172, 31 N.E.2d 57, 986;Gary Railways Company v. Kleinknight, 1941, 110 Ind.App. 72, 36 N.E.2d 939;Reasor v. Reasor, Ind.App. 1945, 60 N.E.2d 536.
The appellees' motion to dismiss must be sustained and this appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagoner's Estate, In re, 19,459
...the rule for filing briefs have not been met. Gary Railways Co. v. Kleinknight, 1941, 110 Ind.App. 72, 36 N.E.2d 939; Wright v. Hines, 1945, 116 Ind.App. 150, 62 N.E.2d 884; Hoover v. Shaffer, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 399, 80 N.E.2d 569; Coal Operators Casualty Co. v. Randolph, 1955, 125 Ind.App.......
-
Fisher v. Driskell
...James C. Curtis & Co. v. Emmerling, supra; Gary Railways Co. v. Kleinknight, 1941, 110 Ind.App. 72, 36 N.E.2d 939; Wright v. Hines, 1945, 116 Ind.App. 150, 62 N.E.2d 884; Hoover v. Shaffer, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 399, 80 N.E.2d 569; Matlaw Corp. v. War Damages Corp., 1953, 123 Ind.App. 593, 112......
-
Muniz v. U.S.
...for filing the same is not a compliance with Rule 2-13 unless it was received by him on the same day it was mailed. Wright v. Hines, 1945, 116 Ind.App. 150, 62 N.E.2d 884; Hoover v. Shaffer, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 399, 80 N.E.2d 569. No distinction between a brief and a petition for a rehearing......
-
Indiana Trust & Sav. Bank v. Zapp
...we hold this appeal must be dismissed. James C. Curtis & Co. v. Emmerling, 1941, 218 Ind. 172, 31 N.E.2d 57, 986; Wright v. Hines, 1945, 116 Ind.App. 150, 62 N.E.2d 884; Hoover v. Shaffer, 1948, 118 Ind.App. 399, 80 N.E.2d 569; Matlaw Corporation v. War Damage Corporation, 1953, 123 Ind.App......