Case Name: The State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. The Terre Haute and Indianapolis R. R. Co.
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1878-11
Citations: 64 Ind. 297
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. The Terre Haute and Indianapolis R. R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 297–303

Head Matter:
The State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. The Terre Haute and Indianapolis R. R. Co.
Supreme Court. — Superior Court. — Assignment of Error. — Practice.—On an appeal from the special, to the general, term of the superior court, no assignment of error was made ; but, on appeal thence to the Supreme Court, error was there assigned upon the judgment of both general and special terms.
Held, that the assignment of error upon the judgment at special term was too late, that the assignment of error upon the judgment at general term raised no question not thei'e assigned on appeal from special term, and that, as no error was assigned on such appeal, no question is presented °to the Supreme Court for decision.
Same. — Negligence.—Diminution of Record. — Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise or Excusable Neglect. — A party appealing a cause must rely upon his own diligence and not upon that of the clerk of the lower court, to procure and file a correct transcript of the cause ; and the lapse of time, after an omission by the clerk of an essential part of the record, whereby the error relied upon by him can not be considered by the appellate court, will prevent his obtaining relief from such omission as a mistake, an inadvertence, a surprise or an excusable neglect.
Same. — Rehearing.—A rehearing will not be granted for the purpose of amending the transcript.
Same. — Affirming Judgment. — Dismissal of Appeal. — The Supreme Court, on appeal, will not dismiss the appeal, but will affirm the judgment, where no question is presented though the appeal was properly taken.
From the Marion Superior Court.
C. A. Buskirk, J. C. Denny, W. R. Harrison, S. Claypool, W. A. Ketcham and J. D. Mitchell, for the State.
B. Harrison, G. G. Hines and W. II. H Miller, for appellee.

Opinion:
Biddle, J.
In this ease the appellee had judgment in its favor on a demurrer to the appellant's complaint, in the Superior Court, at special term.
An appeal was taken to the general term, wherein the judgment was affirmed, from which an appeal was taken to this court.
In the transcript we find this entry:
" The appellant files an abstract of the entry docket, and the following assignment of errors in this cause: [Not on file.]"
But no assignments of error appear in the transcript, as made at the general term.
In this court the appellant has properly assigned as error, that " Said court in general term erred in affirming the judgment in special term," and also assigns as error, that the court in special term erred in sustaining the de murrer to each, paragraph of the plaintiff's complaint. This second assignment of error is made too late in this court. We have frequently decided that we can consider* nothing in this court except the assignments of error made in the superior court at general term. This practice is well settled. Huffman v. The Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis, 51 Ind. 394; Selling v. Jones, 52 Ind. 409; Alexander v. The North- Western Christian University, 57 Ind. 466; Miller v. The State, ex rel. Harrington, 61 Ind. 503.
There being no assignments'of error made at the general term of the superior court in the transcript, no question is presented to this court for decision. .
The judgment is affirmed.