Court Opinion

ID: 9711042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:23:22.19261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:01.841370
License: Public Domain

*574
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Per Curiam.
Appellants submit Petition for Rehearing, without supporting briefs. The petition asserts that we erred in two respects. First, they say that the court as now constituted was not the court which heard ■the oral argument of the appeal. Appellants’ motion for a new trial was grounded upon the asserted insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision and that the latter was contrary to law, and error of the court in overruling appellants’ motion for judgment at the close of appellees’ evidence. In our original opinion we pointed out that the said motion was not in the transcript or the briefs and that the bill of exceptions containing the evidence was not properly certified by the clerk. Thus, in fact, no question was presented by appellants for our determination. Therefore, there was no issue nor point before us rendering a reargument either appropriate or feasible. The deficiencies above referred to were apparent on the face of the record and readily evident to the court without argumentative examination.
Notwithstanding the stated condition of the record upon which we could have rested, we reviewed the evidence to the end of judicially ascertaining whether substantial justice clearly appeared not to have been done. We determined, after such examination of the evidence, that the cause had been fully and fairly tried and a just result reached.
The situation here presented is unlike that referred to in Hanley v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 326, on page 351, 123 N. E. 2d 452, rehearing denied 234 Ind. 326, 126 N. E. 2d 879, and in §2831, Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, 1959 Pocket Part. Here, as we have shown above, the record and briefs presented no question for our consideration. Further, the per*575sonnel of the present court was not changed after the original opinion was written, as was the case in Hanley v. State, supra, but actually constituted the court which promulgated said opinion. Appellants have presented us with no authority, nor have we found such, which holds that the court must burden itself with a second argument on unpresented questions which the court would be without authority to determine.
Second, appellants say that we held that it was incumbent upon “defendant to prove chain of title to himself” and that we erred in so holding. We encounter difficulty in understanding this asserted ground of error. A rereading of our opinion fails to disclose that any chain of title or title to the involved leased real estate was an issue in the action or that the court determined any such issue. Further, we are unable to find that we made the holding appellants complain of. No such issue was proposed and, as stated in the opinion, the only issue discussed by the appellants was that of abandonment of the lease. We think the original opinion is clear and that a cursory reading thereof will serve to dissipate appellants’ said count of alleged error.
The Petition for Rehearing is denied.
Note. — Reported in 159 N. E. 2d 142. Rehearing denied 161 N. E. 2d 380.