(Download) "Smith v. American Creosoting Company" by 911. Supreme Court of Indiana No. 27 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Smith v. American Creosoting Company
- Author : 911. Supreme Court of Indiana No. 27
- Release Date : January 19, 1943
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
RICHMAN, J. There was litigation in the Lawrence Circuit Court between Donald Smith, Auditor of Lawrence County, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, and American Creosoting Company, Inc., hereinafter called respondent, which was concluded by a decree permanently enjoining petitioner from listing certain property on the tax duplicate. When his motion for a new trial was overruled he prayed an appeal to the Appellate Court of Indiana and was granted sixty days within which to file all bills of exceptions. On the day the time for so filing expired he filed in the trial court a petition for extension of time alleging diligence on his part and inability of the court reporter within the time originally granted to transcribe the evidence for the bill of exceptions. His petition was denied. Later, but still within the time for filing transcript and assignment of errors in the Appellate Court, he filed in that court a petition for an order extending the time for filing transcript and assignment of errors and requiring the trial court to extend the time for filing the bill of exceptions. Respondent entered a special appearance in the Appellate Court and filed objections to the granting of the petition. The petition and also the objections detail facts with respect to diligence of petitioner. An order was entered by the Appellate Court ""denying"" the petition. There was no written opinion of that court. A petition for rehearing was overruled. Within twenty days thereafter petitioner filed in this court a petition in two paragraphs seeking to review the decision of the Appellate Court. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction. It is asserted by petitioner, on information and belief, that the Appellate Court considered itself without jurisdiction under Rule 2-2, 1940 Revision, and for that reason ""denied"" the petition for extension of time. A court speaks by its records. The only records before us are silent as to the grounds for the decision. That the petition was ""denied"" rather than dismissed indicates that it was considered and decided upon the merits. The fact that the order book entry recites that the court ""being advised in the premises"" denies the petition also affords an inference that the decision was on the facts. State v. House, Mayor (1918), 187 Ind. 353, 357, 118 N.E. 528.