Case Name: O'Neal, etc. et al. v. Estate of Grace, etc.
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1961-01-31
Citations: 241 Ind. 246
Docket Number: No. 29,793
Parties: O’Neal, etc. et al. v. Estate of Grace, etc.
Judges: Bobbitt, C. J., and Achor and Arterburn, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 241
Pages: 246–248

Head Matter:
O’Neal, etc. et al. v. Estate of Grace, etc.
[No. 29,793.
Filed January 31, 1961.]
Mellen & Mellen, of Bedford, and Gilbert W. Butler, of Martinsville, for appellants.
Hicham & Hicham, Elliott Hicham and George W. Languell, both of Spencer, for appellee.

Opinion:
Landis, J.
This appeal is pending before us on apr pellants' brief and appellee's motion to dismiss.
The appeal was taken by appellants directly to this Court from the lower court's order removing appellant administrator from his said trust and. revoking his letters after he failed to file any reports in the estate for a period of almost five years.
Appellee in his motion to dismiss and brief in support thereof has raised serious questions of this Court's jurisdiction and has pointed out that appellants' brief does not contain any heading or section entitled "Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court" as required by Rule 2-17A, nor contain a statement of any reasons why the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of the direct appeal to this Court. This is not a technical matter but such rule was adopted to enable the Court to come to an intelligent determination of the question of the Court's jurisdiction by having appellants state the basis under which the appeal was taken directly to this Court. In the case before us not only have appellants failed to comply with Rule 2-17A, but they have made no effort to amend their brief to show the jurisdiction of this Court after the defect has been pointed out by appellee.
We therefore have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal as prayed for, as the question of jurisdiction was duly presented by appellee but appellants have totally failed to make any showing of jurisdiction as required by Rule 2-17A.
Appeal dismissed.
Bobbitt, C. J., and Achor and Arterburn, JJ., concur.
Jackson, J., dissents with opinion.