Court Opinion

ID: 9707192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:04:47.339514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:28.974959
License: Public Domain

*411Concurring Opinion.
Achor, J.
— Because of the manner in which the statute we are called upon to construe [§10-1403, Burns’ 1956 Repl.] is written, I believe it is subject to the construction urged by the appellee.
However, since this court in the case of Groenendyk v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 697, 151 N. E. 730, has placed a construction upon the statute adverse to that now urged by the appellee the precedent of which case is of long standing, and since the legislature has not seen fit to amend the act by placing different construction thereon, we must assume that the present legislative intention is consistent with the construction placed upon the act by this court in the case of Groenendyk v. State, supra, and that such construction is now controlling. In Re Batt’s Estate (1942), 220 Ind. 193, 41 N. E. 2d 365; Stout v. The Board of Commissioners of Grant County (1886), 107 Ind. 343, 8 N. E. 222.
Note. — Motion to dismiss reported in 183 N. E. 2d 607. Opinion on merits reported in 186 N. E. 2d 5.