Court Opinion

ID: 9719462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:53:34.841944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.416738
License: Public Domain

*582On Petition for Rehearing
Bobbitt, J.
Michael L. Fansler, a distinguished former member of this court, and Gustav H. Dongus, both members of the Indianapolis Bar, have filed a brief as amici curiae on rehearing in which they assert that both the 1955 Act,1 and the 1949 Act2 are unconstitutional insofar as they attempt to vest the trial court with jurisdiction to determine whether the annexation is in the best interests of the city.
Amicus curiae must accept a case as he finds it. 3 C. J. S., Amicus Curiae, §3(c), p. 1049.
The question which amici curiae seek to present here was not raised by either the appellees or the appellant; therefore, no question is presented which this court can properly consider. Indiana State Board of Medical Reg. v. Seulean (1942), 219 Ind. 321, 328, 37 N. E. 2d 935.
It has been uniformly held in Indiana that a constitutional question will not be considered on appeal unless it was presented in the trial court. Jones et ux. v. Stawicki et ux. (1953), 233 Ind. 272, 274, 111 N. E. 2d 718.
Appellees, in a supplemental brief on rehearing, attempt, for the first time, to raise the question of the omission of necessary parties as appellees. This question was not briefed or urged in appellees’ brief on appeal, and it cannot be raised for the first time on petition for rehearing. Armstrong v. Hufty (1901), 156 Ind. 606, 630, 631, 60 N. E. 1080; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lightheiser (1907), 168 Ind. 438, 467, 78 N. E. 1033.
*583Even if this question had been properly presented, this court has recently held in King, et al., v. City of Bloomington (1959), 239 Ind. 548, 159 N. E. 2d 563, that:
“If there was any defect in the parties named in the complaint in the court below, it should have been properly raised there.
“. . . it is too late here [on appeal] for the appellee to raise any question as to a defect or failure to properly name parties in the assignment of errors, which could have been called to the attention of the parties in the trial court below, as revealed by the complaint filed therein.”
Appellees’ petition for rehearing presents nothing which was not carefully considered in the original opinion and no cause for granting a rehearing has been shown.
Rehearing denied.
Achor, C. J., Arterburn, Jackson and Landis, JJ., concur.
Note.—Reported in 157 N. E. 2d 828.
Rehearing denied in 159 N. E. 2d 572.

. Acts 1955, ch. 269, §3, p. 720, being §48-702, Burns’ 1957 Cum. Supp.

. Acts 1949, ch. 216, §2, p. 701, being §48-702, Burns’ 1950 Replacement.