Court Opinion

ID: 9531419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:10:41.798288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:26.436916
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Emmert, J.
It is quite apparent appellants action to set aside the default judgment was not brought under §2-1068, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, for he does not base it upon “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,...” Nor do I believe it was a petition appealing to the equitable powers of the court. There was an adequate remedy at law.
Appellant’s pleading is in substance and in fact a petition to vacate the judgment because of a mistake in the service of process at his residence, which mistake did not appear on the face of the record. A petition to vacate a judgment for a mistake of fact is in law a petition for the common law writ of error coram nobis. Sanders v. State (1882), 85 Ind. 318; State ex rel. McManamon v. Blackford C. Ct. (1951), 229 Ind. 3, 95 N. E. 2d 556. “A mistake in regard to the existence of a fact upon which jurisdiction to proceed depends and which defect does not appear on the face of the record is ground for a writ of error coram nobis. . . . *180The writ lies to obtain relief against a judgment taken without process or notice, or where there were defects in the process, or in the service of the process.” 34 C. J., p. 396, §610. See 49 C. J. S., p. 566, §312; 31 Am. Jur., p. 323, §802.
No motion for a new trial is contemplated in an action for writ of error coram nobis. Fluty v. State (1947), 224 Ind. 652, 71 N. E. 2d 565; Lucas v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 486, 86 N. E. 2d 682; State ex rel. Blanton v. Smith (1949), 229 Ind. 1, 86 N. E. 2d 84. The historical origin of the writ as well as Rule 2-40 compel this conclusion. The motion for a new trial presented nothing, and therefore did not extend the time for perfecting the appeal.
Assuming, without deciding, that the overruling of appellant’s “motion” on February 4, 1955, constituted a finding and a judgment, no extension of time to file a transcript and assignment of errors was ever filed here until June 29, 1955. The time for perfecting the appeal had expired, and this court never acquired jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. “A failure to perfect an appeal from a final judgment within ninety days, or within time properly extended under Rule 2-2, fails to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal and it should be dismissed. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Stanley (1952), 231 Ind. 338, 341, 108 N. E. 2d 624; Stocker v. City of Hammond (1938), 214 Ind. 628, 16 N. E. 2d 874; Brady v. Garrison (1912), 178 Ind. 459, 460, 99 N. E. 738; Vail v. Page (1911), 175 Ind. 126, 131, 93 N. E. 705.” Dawson v. Wright (1955), 234 Ind. 626, 632, 129 N. E. 2d 796, 799.
The appeal should be dismissed.