Court Opinion

ID: 9516226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:38:22.819597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:19.054278
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Robertson, P.J.
In seeking a rehearing on the decision in this case, 293 N.E.2d 202, Morris, inter alia, argues that the “void” referred to in the main opinion defeats the intent of the law to do an injustice. We are of the opinion that such is not the situation.
From the record before us, it would appear that the facts of this appeal lend themselves to an application of the Journey’s Account Statute, which reads:
“If, after the commencement of an action, the plaintiff fails therein, from any cause except negligence in the prosecution, or the action abate, or be defeated by the death of a party, or judgment be arrested or reversed on appeal, a new action may be brought within five [5] years after such determination, and be deemed a continuation of the first, for the purposes herein contemplated.” IC 34-1-2-8, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 2-608 (Burns 1967).
In discussing the underlying purpose of such a statute, the case of Ware v. Waterman (1969), 146 Ind. App. 237, 253 N.E.2d 708, quoting approvingly from McKinney v. Springer (1851), 3 Ind. 59, holds that a plaintiff has additional time to commence an action if,
“. . . the plaintiff had made an effort ... by commencing an action within the limited time, but, owing to some error in the mode or form in bringing his suit, or in the proceedings, a proper judgment could not be rendered, and while he was prosecuting such an erroneous action *472the statute of limitations had run out. . . 253 N.E.2d, at 713.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
Lowdermilk and Lybrook, JJ., concur.