Lunsford v. Maida

Indiana Court of Appeals

Lunsford v. Maida

140 N.E.2d 762, 127 Ind. App. 236, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 131

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 1957

Docket18,917

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 140 N.E.2d 762 (Lunsford v. Maida) 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

Lunsford v. Maida, 140 N.E.2d 762, 127 Ind. App. 236, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Bowen, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in *237 an action to determine the parentage of a child born out of wedlock.

The appellee has not filed a brief in support of the judgment of the trial court. The rule is well established that the failure of an appellee to file a brief controverting the errors asserted, where the appellant’s brief makes a prima facie showing of reversible error, may be taken as a confession of such errors. This rule has not been established for the benefit of the appellant, but for the protection of the court, and it has been repeatedly held that whether it is invoked is discretionary with the court. Associates Inv. Co. v. Snyder (1949), 119 Ind. App. 20, 83 N. E. 2d 622; Miller v. Julian (1904), 163 Ind. 582, 72 N. E. 588; Meadows v. Hickman (1947), 225 Ind. 146, 73 N. E. 2d 343; Huffman v . Huffman (1947), 117 Ind. App. 601, 75 N. E. 2d 172; Whallon v. Wood (1948), 118 Ind. App. 163, 77 N. E. 2d 913; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Linder (1925), 195 Ind. 569, 145 N. E. 885; Bryant v. School Town of Oakland City (1930), 202 Ind. 254, 171 N. E. 378, 173 N. E. 268; Reed, Adm’r. v. Brown (1939), 215 Ind. 417, 19 N. E. 2d 1015.

In the instant case, the appellant’s brief sets forth evidence in the record which shows admissions of appellee that he had intercourse with the appellant, and an admission that he could be the father of the child. The matter of the determination of paternity is, in any case, a matter of grave concern to society, and to the life and rights of the infant child.

From an examination of the appellant’s contentions set forth in the briefs, this court is of the opinion that a prima facie showing of error has been made, and this cause is therefore reversed and remanded without prejudice to either party, and with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Note. — Reported in 140 N. E. 2d 762.

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

Bowen, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in *237 an action to determine the parentage of a child born out of wedlock.

The appellee has not filed a brief in support of the judgment of the trial court. The rule is well established that the failure of an appellee to file a brief controverting the errors asserted, where the appellant’s brief makes a prima facie showing of reversible error, may be taken as a confession of such errors. This rule has not been established for the benefit of the appellant, but for the protection of the court, and it has been repeatedly held that whether it is invoked is discretionary with the court. Associates Inv. Co. v. Snyder (1949), 119 Ind. App. 20, 83 N. E. 2d 622; Miller v. Julian (1904), 163 Ind. 582, 72 N. E. 588; Meadows v. Hickman (1947), 225 Ind. 146, 73 N. E. 2d 343; Huffman v . Huffman (1947), 117 Ind. App. 601, 75 N. E. 2d 172; Whallon v. Wood (1948), 118 Ind. App. 163, 77 N. E. 2d 913; Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Linder (1925), 195 Ind. 569, 145 N. E. 885; Bryant v. School Town of Oakland City (1930), 202 Ind. 254, 171 N. E. 378, 173 N. E. 268; Reed, Adm’r. v. Brown (1939), 215 Ind. 417, 19 N. E. 2d 1015.

In the instant case, the appellant’s brief sets forth evidence in the record which shows admissions of appellee that he had intercourse with the appellant, and an admission that he could be the father of the child. The matter of the determination of paternity is, in any case, a matter of grave concern to society, and to the life and rights of the infant child.

From an examination of the appellant’s contentions set forth in the briefs, this court is of the opinion that a prima facie showing of error has been made, and this cause is therefore reversed and remanded without prejudice to either party, and with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Note. — Reported in 140 N. E. 2d 762.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 N.E.2d 762, 127 Ind. App. 236, 1957 Ind. App. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunsford-v-maida-indctapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack