Court Opinion

ID: 9743789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:43:07.785045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:43.546552
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Smith, J.
The appellees on behalf of their petition for rehearing insist that the Bill of Exceptions containing the evidence is not properly in the record for the reason that the clerk’s certificate to the transcript does not authenticate such bill of exceptions. The appellees submit that Rule 2-3 of the Supreme Court requires that every bill of exceptions tendered, prior to the filing of the transcript in the Appellate Court, shall be filed with the Clerk, which filing may be evidenced by the Clerk’s certificate.
*449The appellees argue that the Appellate Court recited facts which appear in the bill of exceptions, not shown filed with the Clerk, which the Court used as a basis for reversal of the judgment and that by reason of this fact the appellees are being denied the equal protection of the law within the constitution of the State of Indiana as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United-States.
Assuming, without deciding, that a defect exists in the clerk’s certificate, the appellees are not now in a position to raise the' question. On April 30, 1964, the appellees petitioned for and received an extension of time to file their answer brief. Rule 2-16 of the Supreme Court requires the petition to “state facts showing that the court in which the cause is pending has jurisdiction and that the briefs will be on the merits.” (emphasis supplied) An objection that the clerk’s certificate to the bill of exceptions is not in the record does not go to the merits of the appeal and by their petition for extension of time the alleged error was waived. Gamble v. Lewis (1949), 227 Ind. 455, 85 N. E. (2d) 629; Brodt v. Duthie (1933), 97 Ind. App. 692, 186 N. E. 893.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Note. — -Reported in 208 N. E. 2d 692. Rehearing denied in 209 N. E. 2d 737.