Stuyvesant Insurance v. United Public Insurance

*537Dissenting Opinion

Smith, C.J.

— The factual situation set forth in the majority opinion denying the petition of the appellee to file a late brief is substantially correct. However, I question the statements contained in said opinion which read as follows:

“Appellee, in the case at bar, appeared and participated in the oral argument and frankly admitted that its interpretation of Rule 2-15, of the Supreme Court Rules of Indiana, was to the effect that unless action ivas taken by due date to file an answer brief, appellee by such rule was precluded thereafter to file an answer brief. With this…