Court Opinion

ID: 9721744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:07:25.44223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.412839
License: Public Domain

On Petition foe Reheaeing
Kelley, P. J.
The appellee has filed herein a petition asserting that our opinion in this cause is erroneous in certain respects.
The assignment of error was filed by the appellant in the office of the clerk of this court on December 15, 1960. From that date down to the filing of the aforesaid petition on March 19, 1962, the appellee entered no appearance and filed no brief. Upon such failure of appellee to file answer brief, we were vested with a discretion. It may have been advisable to treat such failure as a confession of error and have remanded the case for further proceedings without any opinion on the merits. 2 I. L. E., §394, pages 275, 277, and cases cited. However, we exercised our discretion on behalf of appellee and considered and determined the questions presented by appellant’s brief without any assistance from appellee.
*259*258Now for the first time, upon petition for a rehearing, appellee seeks to discuss the questions pre*259sented and argued by appellant in its brief. It is too late for appellee, after the case has been decided, to seek to present by a petition for rehearing the matters, questions and propositions which were proper for presentation, and treatment in an answer brief.
To the end that no injustice may have occurred by reason of appellee’s omission to file her brief, we have examined said petition for a rehearing. We find nothing therein which calls for any change or alteration of our original opinion. Of the ten asserted reasons, some are duplications in substance, others give no reason why the decision is thought to be erroneous as required by Rule 2-22, while others contain assumptions and unfounded conjectures as to certain stated facts which find no basis in the evidence. Generally, see Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1961), 241 Ind. 302, 171 N. E. 2d 823, 825.
The petition for a rehearing is dismissed.
Bierly and Pfaff, JJ., concur; Gonas, J., dissents.
Note. — Reported in 180 N. E. 2d 381, Rehearing dismissed 181 N. E. 2d 538.