Keplinger v. Ward

Indiana Court of Appeals

Keplinger v. Ward

64 N.E.2d 307, 116 Ind. App. 517, 1946 Ind. App. LEXIS 142

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 1946

DocketNo. 17,436.

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 64 N.E.2d 307 (Keplinger v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keplinger v. Ward, 64 N.E.2d 307, 116 Ind. App. 517, 1946 Ind. App. LEXIS 142 (Ind. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION.SUSPENDING APPEAL

Flanagan, C. J.

The only assignment of error not waived by appellant is, “The court erred in overruling appellant’s amended motion for. a new trial.”

But the amended motion for a new trial was not filed until 56 days after the finding and judgment of the trial court. Having been filed too late it was a nullity. It did not take out the original motion and the court’s ruling on it presents no question for consideration. Berning v. Scheuman (1942), 111 Ind. App. 156, 40 N. E. (2d) 1005.

An examination of the transcript discloses that the original motion for a new trial was filed in time but that the trial court has not ruled on it. Both appellant and appellees have briefed the questions which would be presented by the overruling of said motion. Therefore, if the trial court so rules no further briefing here is necessary. But if the trial *520 court sustains the motion this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ordered that consideration of this appeal be suspended until disposition is made of the original motion for a new trial in the trial court, and the clerk of that court is ordered to certify here any such proceedings.

Note. — Reported in 64 N. E. (2d) 307.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI