Court Opinion

ID: 9518680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:58:46.901034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:47.888606
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Per Curiam.
Relators have petitioned this court to grant a rehearing in the above entitled cause. One of the questions raised was whether a litigant whose cause of action is dismissed is entitled to have the same reinstated upon motion.
In its original verified petition for writ of mandate relators stated:
“That promptly after having obtained new counsel, on the 6th day of September 1966 . . . filed in the Dubois Circuit Court a motion to reinstate this cause. . .
It is to be noted that on January 15, 1965, the respondents had sustained defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and to dismiss this cause of action.
It is stated in 12 I.L.E. § 51, page 299:
“Laches, in a general sense, is neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. More specifically, it is inexcusable delay in asserting a right; an implied waiver arising from knowledge of existing conditions and an acquiescence in them; such neglect to assert a right, as taken in conjunction with lapse of time more or less great and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party.”
*43This doctrine is properly based upon the grounds of public policy.
The relators further have stated by way of argument, that had the relators herein sought relief by taking the avenue by way of appeal, they would have been required to perfect their appeal under the rules of this court. This, the relators did not do because they were not required to do so. As the respondent court, as it firmly appears from this record, was without authority either statutory or inherent to dismiss, and this action being void and wrongful, it became its duty to reinstate the cause upon a motion requiring it to do so, and upon its failure to grant such relief, the re-lators were entitled to the right to pursue their remedy provided by mandate and prohibition and were not required to seek relief by the avenue of appeal.
The period of time involved, however, constituted “laches.”
A person seeking mandate or prohibition must have acted promptly and not have delayed unduly seeking his rights. State ex rel. Nineteenth Hole, Inc. v. Marion S. Ct. (1963), 243 Ind. 604, 189 N. E. 2d 421; State ex rel. Hashfield v. Warrick Cir. Ct. (1961), 242 Ind. 318, 178 N. E. 2d 734.
Petition for rehearing is denied.
Note. — Reported in 233 N. E. 2d 177. Rehearing in 234 N. E. 2nd 859.