From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Southern Pacific Company v. Mitnik

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Dec 19, 1944
115 Ind. App. 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 1944)

Opinion

No. 17,317.

Filed December 19, 1944. Rehearing denied January 29, 1945. Transfer denied March 13, 1945.

1. APPEAL — Assignment of Errors — Motion for Directed Verdict Overruled — Improper Independent Assignment. — An assignment of error that the court erred in overruling a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence presents no question for review where it is independently assigned and is not stated as one of the grounds for new trial in the motion therefor. p. 465.

2. APPEAL — Presentation in Lower Court of Grounds of Review — Motion for New Trial — Motion Filed Too Late — Effect. — The question of error in the overruling of a motion for new trial was not before the Appellate Court where the motion was filed 55 days after the return of the verdict instead of within 30 days thereafter as required by statute. p. 465.

From the Dearborn Circuit Court; Morris W. McManaman, Judge.

Action between the Southern Pacific Company and Eli W. Mitnik, doing business as Distillers Cooperage Company, and others. From the judgment entered, Southern Pacific Company appealed, and appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

Appeal Dismissed. By the court in banc.

Hartell F. Denmure, of Aurora, for appellant.

Charles A. Lowe, of Lawrenceburg, for appellees.


The record of this cause appears by nunc pro tunc entry of the court below made on July 1, 1944, showing a trial by jury on April 26, 1944, with return of the verdict on the same day and a further showing that appellants' motion for a new trial was filed on June 21, 1944.

Appellant assigns two errors (a) that the court below erred in overruling appellants' motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence, (b) that the court erred in 1. overruling the motion for a new trial.

The first assignment presents no question since it is independently assigned and not stated as one of the grounds for new trial in the motion therefor. White v. State, ex rel. (1915), 183 Ind. 649, 109 N.E. 905; Fausett v. State (1942), 219 Ind. 500, 39 N.E.2d 728; Lavene v. Friedrichs (1917), 186 Ind. 333, 115 N.E. 324, 116 N.E. 421.

The question on the motion for a new trial is not before us since the record shows the motion to have been filed 55 days after the return of the verdict instead of within 30 days 2. thereafter as required by statute. § 2-2403, Burns' 1933; § 370, Baldwin's 1934; Income Guaranty Co. v. Zienlinski (1939), 107 Ind. App. 248, 21 N.E.2d 87.

Appellee has filed timely motion to dismiss. It must be sustained.

Ordered: Appeal be and same is hereby dismissed.

NOTE. — Reported in 58 N.E.2d 201.


Summaries of

Southern Pacific Company v. Mitnik

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Dec 19, 1944
115 Ind. App. 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 1944)
Case details for

Southern Pacific Company v. Mitnik

Case Details

Full title:SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. MITNIK

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Dec 19, 1944

Citations

115 Ind. App. 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 1944)
58 N.E.2d 201

Citing Cases

Albert v. Cherry Grove Nursing Home, Inc.

Both the Supreme Court of Indiana and our Court have, in many cases, held that the foregoing statute is…

Strate v. Strate

must be filed within the time fixed by statute in order to raise any issues on appeal. Lloyd's Motor Sales of…