From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lester v. Grant Circuit Court

Supreme Court of Indiana
Apr 26, 1948
78 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. 1948)

Opinion

No. 28,448.

Filed April 26, 1948.

1. HABEAS CORPUS — Jurisdiction and Relief — Service on Attorney General. — A petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court does not commence until a copy of the pleadings are served on the Attorney General. p. 186.

2. MANDAMUS — Jurisdiction — Complaint — Certified Copies of Pleadings Necessary — Rules of Supreme Court. — A petition for a writ of mandamus does not state a cause of action unless certified copies of all pleadings, orders and entries pertaining to the subject matter are filed with the petition, as provided by the rules of the Supreme Court. p. 187.

3. MANDAMUS — Jurisdiction — Parties — Mandamus Must Be A State Ex Rel. Proceeding. — A petition for a writ of mandate must be brought in the name of the State of Indiana on the relation of petitioner. p. 187.

Original action by Allen Lester for a writ of mandate to require the judge of the Grant Circuit Court to hear a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Allen Lester, pro se, for petitioner.

Oren W. Dickey, Judge, Grant Circuit Court, Marion, pro se for respondent.


Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to require the judge of the Grant Circuit Court to hear an alleged petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner in said court. There is 1. no allegation that there has ever been any service of a copy of his pleadings in the Grant Circuit Court upon the Attorney General as required by § 49-1937, Burns' 1933 (Supp.) (Acts 1945, ch. 3, § 1, p. 7; Acts 1947, ch. 196, § 1). Petitioner has no action commenced in the Grant Circuit Court until this is done. State ex rel. Wadsworth v. Mead (1947), 225 Ind. 123, 73 N.E.2d 53; State ex rel. Minton v. Parke Circuit Court (1948), Ante, p. 55, 77 N.E.2d 749.

Nor does the petition comply with Rule 2-35 of this court which requires in this sort of action "certified copies of all pleadings, orders and entries pertaining to the subject 2. matter" in the inferior court. The petition here does not state a cause of action. State ex rel. Talkington v. Hoffman, Judge (1947), 225 Ind. 475, 76 N.E.2d 252; State ex rel. Crawford v. Owen, Judge (1948), 225 Ind. 601, 77 N.E.2d 123; State ex rel. Lee v. Wilson, Judge (1948), 225 Ind. 640, 77 N.E.2d 354.

Moreover, petitioner seeks to prosecute this action in his own name instead of in the name of the State of Indiana on his relation. This court has previously held this requirement 3. to be mandatory. Board of Public Safety v. Walling (1934), 206 Ind. 240, 246, 187 N.E. 385; Rogers v. Youngblood, Judge (1948), Post, 645, 78 N.E.2d 663. The petition fails to state a cause for relief and therefore it is denied.

NOTE. — Reported in 78 N.E.2d 785.


Summaries of

Lester v. Grant Circuit Court

Supreme Court of Indiana
Apr 26, 1948
78 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. 1948)
Case details for

Lester v. Grant Circuit Court

Case Details

Full title:LESTER v. GRANT CIRCUIT COURT

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Apr 26, 1948

Citations

78 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. 1948)
78 N.E.2d 785

Citing Cases

Wyatt v. Criminal Ct. of Lake Co.

(3) There is no allegation that the Attorney General has been served with notice of the filing of the…

White v. Marion Criminal Court

The 1, 2. petition is not brought in the name of the State of Indiana on his relation, which is a mandatory…