Court Opinion

ID: 9745640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 23:15:20.995902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:03.662454
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Gilkison, J.
I dissent to the majority opinion in this case for the following reasons:
First.
The only assignment of error in the appeal, omitting caption and signature, is as follows:
“Now come respondents-appellants, by E. J. Wiltrout, John D. Knodell and Robert F. Hanley, their attorneys, and assign as error the final order of the Superior Court of Lake County sitting at Gary, Indiana, in the above entitled cause, in so far as that order:
“1. Discharged the petitioner-appellee from restraint, detention and custody of the respondents-appellants; and
“2. Refused to grant respondents-appellants leave to amend their return, on the ground that in those respects said final order is contrary to law.”
This assignment is not sufficiently certain to present any question in this court. “Assignments of error to be available must.be specific” and a general assignment presents no question. Lawless et al. v. Harrington et al. (1881), 75 Ind. 379, 381. McGlennan v. Margowski (1883), 90 Ind. 150, 153. Gray v. Gray (1931), 202 Ind. 485, 489, 176 N. E. 105. Dye v. The State (1891), 130 Ind. 87, 88, 29 N. E. 771. May v. The State (1895), 140 Ind. 88, 89, 39 N. E. 701. Peel v. Overstreet (1921), 190 Ind. 290, 291, 130 N. E. 113. Warner v. Reed (1916), 62 Ind. App. 544, 548, 113 N. E. 386.
Our courts frequently have stated the rule applicable *409to such a general assignment of error, some of which cases in addition to the cases cited above, are as follows:
“It has frequently been said that the assignment of error is the complaint of the appellant, and each specification of error is a paragraph of complaint. The burden rests upon the appellant to present, by each specification, in definite and concise language, some ruling of the trial court urged as error.” May v. State (1895), 140 Ind. 88, 89, 39 N. E. 701, 702 supra. Duffy v. Hayden (1943), 114 Ind. App. 125, 127, 50 N. E. 2d 666. Helms v. Cook (1916), 62 Ind. App. 629, 631, 111 N. E. 632.
“In considering the sufficiency of an assignment of errors all ambiguities or uncertainties therein will be construed against the pleading. The court cannot indulge any presumptions, and thereby supply what the appellant by his pleading may have possibly or probably intended.” Whisler v. Whisler (1903), 162 Ind. 136, 144, 67 N. E. 984. Robinson v. Hilbrich (1935), 101 Ind. App. 54, 56, 198 N. E. 120. Duffy et al. v. Hayden et al. supra, page 127. Helms v. Cook, supra.
“It is the general rule, and one which has been strictly adhered to, that the appellant is confined to his assignment of errors as written, and that each error assigned must be so complete, specific and certain, as to clearly indicate the identity of the particular ruling upon which the error is predicated.” Mesker v. Bishop (1913), 56 Ind. App. 455, 460, 103 N. E. 492, 105 N. E. 644. Sec. 2-3225 Burns’ 1946 Replacement. Sec. 2-6 Rules Supreme Court of Indiana. Walter A. Wood, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Angemeier (1912), 51 Ind. App. 258, 260, 99 N. E. 500 and cited cases. Shull v. Dunten (1916), 62 Ind. App. 602, 604, 113 N. E. 381.
From the authorities noted above, it is obvious to me that appellants have presented no question for us to pass upon by their assignment of errors. Appellants have not copied in their briefs any part or parcel of their assignment of errors.
In addition to this, appellants have made no effort in *410their brief to discuss the errors assigned. On the contrary they have completely abandoned the assigned errors and confined their discussion to other errors as follows:
1. “The court erred in sustaining the exceptions to the amended return”, and
2. “The trial court erred in refusing to grant respondents leave to file a second amended return incorporating the written requisition of the governor of Illinois and that governor’s authentication of the indictment.”
It seems to me that this is not a discussion of the errors assigned. It has always been t-he rule in Indiana that the errors assigned and those discussed in the brief of appellants must be the same in order to have such errors considered. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Jeffery (1901), 26 Ind. App. 143, 59 N. E. 330. City of Greenfield, v. Johnson (1902), 30 Ind. App. 127, 129, 65 N. E. 542. Debs v. Dalton et al. (1893), 7 Ind. App. 84, 88, 34 N. E. 236. McBride v. State ex rel. McKinley (1933), 97 Ind. App. 305, 306, 186 N. E. 388.
Our appellate court has rather consistently held that if:
“Appellant’s brief does not contain a copy of his assignment of errors, or any statement concerning its contents .... Under the rules of this court, no question is presented concerning the same.” Milburn v. Waggoner (1932), 94 Ind. App. 247, 250 and cases cited, 180 N. E. 606. Howard v. Palmer (1932), 94 Ind. App. 80, 179 N. E. 732.
It has been the universal rule of our court that:
“A failure to discuss any assignment of error is, under the well settled practice of this court, a waiver of such assignment, and therefore, these alleged errors are deemed waived.” The Ohio and Mississippi Railway Company v. Nickless (1881), *41173 Ind. 382, 385. Deming Hotel Co. v. Sisson (1940), 216 Ind. 587, 592, 24 N. E. 2d 912. Piety v. Ladson (1934), 98 Ind. App. 345, 346, 189 N. E. 164.
The assignment of errors in no way questions the action of the trial court in sustaining the exception to the return to the writ. Yet that is the only proposition discussed in appellants’ brief. Having omitted to assign any error thereon they may not be heard to complain thereof in this court.
The majority opinion fails to take notice of the absence of any assigned error presenting the question so discussed by appellants, and proceeds to determine the question of the court’s action in sustaining the exceptions as though error had been so assigned. To me this is a gross error of our court. Since in addition to the specific case noted in the opinion it, by inference, overrules scores of cases that have been decided by our court down through the years, to this date, nullifies Sec. 2-3225, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, supra, and Rule 2-6 of the Supreme Court, it makes this court a part nisi prius court in that we determine questions on appeal without complaint having been made by the losing party in manner and form as clearly provided by law.
No other question was even attempted to be determined by the majority opinion, and none other was attempted to be presented by the briefs or oral argument of appellants.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Emmert, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported in 113 N. E. 2d 45.