State Ex Rel. Lasalle Extension University v. Pyle

Indiana Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Lasalle Extension University v. Pyle

85 N.E.2d 629, 227 Ind. 263, 1949 Ind. LEXIS 136

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 4, 1949

DocketNo. 28,554.

StatusPublished

This text of 85 N.E.2d 629 (State Ex Rel. Lasalle Extension University v. Pyle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Lasalle Extension University v. Pyle, 85 N.E.2d 629, 227 Ind. 263, 1949 Ind. LEXIS 136 (Ind. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Starr, C. J.

This is an original action wherein the relator seeks to mandate the respondent to reinstate certain proceedings supplemental to execution which are being prosecuted in respondent’s court.

The relator has described the respondent in the caption of his petition as an individual. There are sufficient allegations in the petition, however, to indicate that the action is brought against the respondent as Judge of the St. Joseph Circuit Court. We will, therefore, disregard this irregularity.

It is alleged in this petition that the respondent has “revoked and nullified said proceedings.” It is not clear what is meant by this allegation. There is attached to said petiton, however, a certified copy of the record of all the proceedings referred to in same, and from this record it appears that these proceedings have not been in any manner, altered, modified, changed, revoked or nullified. In other words, relator’s petition is contrary to the records of the court which is attached thereto. Under these circumstances we are bound by the record, as it imports verity. State ex rel. Thompson v. Rhoads (1946), 224 Ind. 136, 65 N. E. 2d 248.

Relator’s petition is, therefore, denied.

Note.—Reported in 85 N. E. 2d 629.

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

Starr, C. J.

This is an original action wherein the relator seeks to mandate the respondent to reinstate certain proceedings supplemental to execution which are being prosecuted in respondent’s court.

The relator has described the respondent in the caption of his petition as an individual. There are sufficient allegations in the petition, however, to indicate that the action is brought against the respondent as Judge of the St. Joseph Circuit Court. We will, therefore, disregard this irregularity.

It is alleged in this petition that the respondent has “revoked and nullified said proceedings.” It is not clear what is meant by this allegation. There is attached to said petiton, however, a certified copy of the record of all the proceedings referred to in same, and from this record it appears that these proceedings have not been in any manner, altered, modified, changed, revoked or nullified. In other words, relator’s petition is contrary to the records of the court which is attached thereto. Under these circumstances we are bound by the record, as it imports verity. State ex rel. Thompson v. Rhoads (1946), 224 Ind. 136, 65 N. E. 2d 248.

Relator’s petition is, therefore, denied.

Note.—Reported in 85 N. E. 2d 629.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 N.E.2d 629, 227 Ind. 263, 1949 Ind. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-lasalle-extension-university-v-pyle-ind-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack