Court Opinion

ID: 9543678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:48:00.02325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:53.703125
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
Per Curiam.
The record before us reveals that the appellees’ petition for a rehearing of this appeal was filed on the last day permissible under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana. On the same day, a copy thereof was mailed to counsel for the appellant and received by them the following day.
The appellant herein has filed a motion to dismiss the appellees’ petition for rehearing averring that the appellees failed to comply with Rule 2-13 of our Supreme Court.
The appellee in his brief in opposition to the appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition for rehearing avers, “Since the copies” (the petition for rehearing) “mailed to appellant were postmarked as of January 20, 1959,” (the last day under the rule to file said petition for rehearing) “service should be deemed to have been made on that day. Actual receipt took place the next morn*453ing. There should, therefore, be no basis for dismissing the petition for rehearing.”
It is the appellees’ contention that Rule 2-15A of the Supreme Court should apply and that since Rule 2-15A, which was adopted on June 26, 1956, effective September 1, 1956, being subsequent to this court’s ruling in the case of Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp. (1953), 123 Ind. App. 593, 112 N. E. 2d, 233, the same being the authority relied on by the appellant to support his motion to dismiss, is not controlling for the reason that this court, in the case of Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp., supra, stated that no distinction could be drawn between a brief and a petition for rehearing with reference to the time for serving.
We are unable to agree with the appellees’ contention for the following reasons :
It is apparent from a review of our authorities and the Supreme Court Rules that formerly no notice of the filing of a petition for a rehearing was necessary. See Hanley v. Mason (1908), 42 Ind. App. 312, 85 N. E. 381. Rule 2-13 of the Supreme Court, prior to 1943, provided that:
“Notice to the party affected shall be given of all motions and petitions, except petitions for rehearing . . .” (Our emphasis.)
In 1943, this rule was changed so as to eliminate the exception as to petitions for rehearing. The present rule reads, as follows:
“Within the time allowed for filing motions and petitions, and briefs in support thereof, copies shall be served upon the parties affected, or their attorneys of record, and proof of such service shall be made at the time of filing or promptly thereafter.” (Our emphasis.)
*454*453Rule 2-13 has been held to apply to petitions for re *454hearings, as well as the brief filed in support thereof, and a failure to comply therewith requires a dismissal of the petition. Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp., supra; Norling v. Bailey (1951), 121 Ind. App. 457, 462, 99 N. E. 2d 439.
Our court stated in the case of Matlaw Corp. v. War Damage Corp., supra, that:
“Concerning an appellant’s brief we have held that the mailing of a copy thereof to opposing counsel on the last day for filing the same is not a compliance with Rule 2-13 unless it was received by him on the same day it was mailed. Wright v. Hines (1945), 116 Ind. App. 150, 62 N. E. 2d 884; Hoover v. Shaffer (1948), 118 Ind. App. 399, 80 N. E. 569. No distinction between a brief and a petition for a rehearing can be drawn as the time for serving a copy of either upon the opposing party or his attorney is governed by the same rule.”
In interpreting Rule 2-13, we believe the word, brief, used in said Rule applies solely to briefs in support of motions or petitions as provided for in Rules 2-12 and 2-22.
Rule 2-15A, upon which the appellees rely, applies only to briefs, and does not relate to the filing of motions and petitions, including petitions for a rehearing. The Supreme Court had judicial knowledge of the contents of Rule 2-13 at the time that they adopted Rule 2-15A, and, as they did not see fit to change, or modify said Rule, we are bound by Rule 2-13 as it now appears relating to petitions and motions.
This court on appeal is always reluctant to decide a case upon a failure to comply with the rules, but the rules have the force and effect of law and are binding on this court as well as the litigants. State of Indiana v. Allison (1956), 235 Ind. 294, 133 N. E. 2d 469.
*455Thus, it being apparent that the appellees did not, within the time allowed (20 days), serve upon the appellant herein, or his attorneys of record, a copy of the appellees’ petition for a rehearing, the petition for a rehearing is dismissed.
Note. — Reported in 155 N. E. 2d 140.
Rehearing dismissed 156 N. E. 2d 641.