State Ex Rel. Brennan v. SUPERIOR COURT ETC. , 240 Ind. 446 ( 1960 )

DISSENTING OPINION

Bobbitt, J.

I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that there was a substantial compliance with Rule 2-35, particularly since relator’s.. statement that he presented to respondent judge a written motion, which questioned the jurisdiction of the trial court, a copy of which is set out in relator’s reply to respondent’s return, is supported by a statement in ■ respondent’s return that about three o’clock p.m. on February 26, 1960, relator’s counsel “returned to Respondent Court and renewed the request that Respondent change the judgment and the commitment and asserted orally that the matter dealt with did not constitute a direct contempt of Court and that Respondent had no jurisdiction in the matter.”

I would decide the case on the merits.

Note. — -Reported in 166 N. E. 2d 336.