Title: WEST v. McKeon
Citation: 113 N.E.2d 45, 232 Ind. 403
Docket Number: 28,994
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: June 16, 1953

232 Ind. 403 (1953)
113 N.E.2d 45
WEST, ET AL.
v.
McKEON.
No. 28,994.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed June 16, 1953.
*404 David P. Stanton, former Prosecuting Attorney, Metro Holovacha, Prosecuting Attorney, Ivan A. Elliott, former Attorney General of Illinois, Latham Castle, Attorney General of Illinois, Ben W. Heineman, John D. Knodell, Robert F. Hanley, and Harry S. Ditchbourne, Special Assistant Attorneys General, State of Illinois, for appellants.
Herbert J. Morris and Morris Chudom, both of Gary, for appellee.
BOBBITT, C.J.
This is an appeal from an order in a habeas corpus proceeding discharging appellee who was held in custody under a warrant issued by the Governor of Indiana.
The application for writ of habeas corpus alleged that plaintiff (appellee) was illegally restrained and requested his discharge. Exceptions were filed to an amended return which alleged that plaintiff was being held in custody pursuant to a warrant issued by the Governor of Indiana and, as a part of said amended *405 return, defendants attached a copy of the following instruments:
To this amended return plaintiff filed his exceptions and as the sole grounds therefor stated:
Neither the requisition nor the certificate of authentication by the Governor of Illinois was returned as a part of the amended return.
The determinative question here is: Did the failure to make such requisition and certificate a part of the amended return render it insufficient?[1]
*406 The statute governing a return to an application for writ of habeas corpus provides:
Section 3-1914, Burns' 1946 Replacement, Acts 1881, (Spec. Sess.), ch. 38, § 787, p. 240.
The authority upon which appellee was restrained was the warrant issued by the Governor of Indiana. Lawrence v. King (1932), 203 Ind. 252, 256, 180 N.E. 1.
In Martin v. Newland, Sheriff (1925), 196 Ind. 58, 62, 147 N.E. 141, it is said, "... the statute[2] required that the sheriff should set out such requisition and warrant as parts of his return, and produce the original in court."
Section 3-1914, supra, provides that if the authority upon which the person is detained be in writing, a copy shall be filed with the return. As we have said, the governor's warrant is the authority upon which appellee herein was held and when a copy was filed with the return the requirement of the statute was satisfied.
Insofar as Martin v. Newland, Sheriff, supra, purports to require the setting out of the requisition of the governor of the demanding state as a part of the return to an application for writ of habeas corpus, it is overruled.
The amended return contains a copy of the governor's warrant.
*407 A demand for the extradition of a person charged with crime in another state must be in writing and accompanied by copy of an indictment found or by an information supported by affidavit in the state having jurisdiction of the crime, or by a copy of any warrant which was issued thereon, and the copy must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand, which shall be prima facie evidence of its truth. Acts 1935, ch. 49, § 3, p. 134, § 9-421, Burns' 1942 Replacement.
A copy of the governor's warrant filed with the amended return recites that a requisition by the Governor of Illinois directed to the Governor of Indiana and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State of Indiana demanded the arrest of Patrick McKeon and his delivery to Sergeant Angelo Bastone, the agent of the Governor of Illinois; that the requisition was accompanied by a copy of an indictment charging the person so demanded with having committed a crime within the jurisdiction of said state, and that such copy is certified as authentic by the Governor of Illinois.
The warrant is valid on its face and is prima facie evidence of the matters recited therein. This prima facie case could not be overcome by exceptions but must be done by answer. Kemper v. Metzger (1907), 169 Ind. 112, 121, 81 N.E. 663; Hartman v. Aveline (1878), 63 Ind. 344, 349, 30 Am. Rep. 217; Robinson v. Flanders (1867), 29 Ind. 10, 12; Nichols v. Cornelius (1856), 7 Ind. 611, 613.
Since the requisition and certificate of the Governor of Illinois were not a necessary part of appellants' (defendants') return herein, and the amended return was sufficient on its face, the trial court erred in sustaining appellee's (plaintiff's) exceptions thereto.
Judgment reversed with instructions to overrule appellee's *408 (plaintiff's) exceptions and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed.
Gilkison, J. dissents with opinion in which Emmert, J. concurs.
GILKISON, J.
I dissent to the majority opinion in this case for the following reasons:
This assignment is not sufficiently certain to present any question in this court. "Assignments of error to be available must be specific" and a general assignment presents no question. Lawless et al. v. Harrington et al. (1881), 75 Ind. 379, 381. McGlennan v. Margowski (1883), 90 Ind. 150, 153. Gray v. Gray (1931), 202 Ind. 485, 489, 176 N.E. 105. Dye v. The State (1891), 130 Ind. 87, 88, 29 N.E. 771. May v. The State (1895), 140 Ind. 88, 89, 39 N.E. 701. Peel v. Overstreet (1921), 190 Ind. 290, 291, 130 N.E. 113. Warner v. Reed (1916), 62 Ind. App. 544, 548, 113 N.E. 386.
Our courts frequently have stated the rule applicable *409 to such a general assignment of error, some of which cases in addition to the cases cited above, are as follows:
From the authorities noted above, it is obvious to me that appellants have presented no question for us to pass upon by their assignment of errors. Appellants have not copied in their briefs any part or parcel of their assignment of errors.
In addition to this, appellants have made no effort in *410 their brief to discuss the errors assigned. On the contrary they have completely abandoned the assigned errors and confined their discussion to other errors as follows:
It seems to me that this is not a discussion of the errors assigned. It has always been the rule in Indiana that the errors assigned and those discussed in the brief of appellants must be the same in order to have such errors considered. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Jeffery (1901), 26 Ind. App. 143, 59 N.E. 330. City of Greenfield v. Johnson (1902), 30 Ind. App. 127, 129, 65 N.E. 542. Debs v. Dalton et al. (1893), 7 Ind. App. 84, 88, 34 N.E. 236. McBride v. State ex rel. McKinley (1933), 97 Ind. App. 305, 306, 186 N.E. 388.
Our appellate court has rather consistently held that if:
It has been the universal rule of our court that:
The assignment of errors in no way questions the action of the trial court in sustaining the exception to the return to the writ. Yet that is the only proposition discussed in appellants' brief. Having omitted to assign any error thereon they may not be heard to complain thereof in this court.
The majority opinion fails to take notice of the absence of any assigned error presenting the question so discussed by appellants, and proceeds to determine the question of the court's action in sustaining the exceptions as though error had been so assigned. To me this is a gross error of our court. Since in addition to the specific case noted in the opinion it, by inference, overrules scores of cases that have been decided by our court down through the years, to this date, nullifies Sec. 2-3225, Burns' 1946 Replacement, supra, and Rule 2-6 of the Supreme Court, it makes this court a part nisi prius court in that we determine questions on appeal without complaint having been made by the losing party in manner and form as clearly provided by law.
No other question was even attempted to be determined by the majority opinion, and none other was attempted to be presented by the briefs or oral argument of appellants.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Emmert, J., concurs.
NOTE.  Reported in 113 N.E.2d 45.
[1]  Appellee does not question the sufficiency of appellant's assignment of errors.
[2]  Acts 1881 (Spec. Sess.) ch. 38, § 787, p. 240, § 3-1914, Burns' 1946 Replacement.