Jasper Chicago Mtr. Exp. v. Ziffrin Truck Lines

Full title: JASPER CHICAGO MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. v. ZIFFRIN TRUCK LINES, INC

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: May 24, 1961

241 Ind. 643 (Ind. 1961)

175 N.E.2d 20

Opinion

No. 19,576.

Filed May 24, 1961.

1. APPEAL — Jurisdiction — Naming Parties in Assignment of Errors. — Statement in an Appellate Court opinion to the effect that the failure to name a party in the assignment of errors on appeal is jurisdictional is disapproved. p. 644.

2. APPEAL — Transfer to Supreme Court — Denial of Transfer — Defect in Parties Named — Jurisdiction — Rules of Supreme Court. — Dismissal of an appeal is proper where after appellant's attention was called to the defect in the parties named in the assignment of errors, no application or attempt was made to amend as provided for under Rule 2-6. p. 644.

From the Marion Superior Court, No. 3, Sidney A. Horn, Special Judge.

Appellee, Ziffrin Truck Lines, Inc., brought an action for injunction and judgment was rendered favorable to appellee. From a decision of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal from the lower court's judgment, appellant, Jasper Chicago Motor Express, Inc., petitions for a transfer from the Appellate Court. Transfer denied. Reporter's note. — Appellate Court opinion reported in 172 N.E.2d 586.

John E. Lesow and James E. Lesh, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.

R. Stanley Lawton, Alan H. Lobley, and Ross, McCord, Ice Miller, of counsel, all of Indianapolis, for appellee.

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has petitioned this court for a transfer from the Appellate Court. (See opinion reported in 132 Ind. App. ___, 172 N.E.2d 586.)

We disapprove the statement in the opinion of the Appellate Court to the effect that the failure to name a party in the 1. assignment of errors is jurisdictional.

Rule 2-6 provides specifically that:

". . . Failure properly to name parties will not be treated as jurisdictional. Amendments may be permitted upon such terms as the court shall direct."

However, transfer is denied on the ground that after the appellant's attention was called to the defect in the parties named in the assignment of errors, no application or 2. attempt was made to amend, as provided in the above quoted rule.

The petition to transfer is denied.

NOTE. — Reported in 175 N.E.2d 20.