Case Name: Aldridge v. Aldridge et al.
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1968-02-21
Citations: 142 Ind. App. 289
Docket Number: No. 20,709
Parties: Aldridge v. Aldridge et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 289–293

Head Matter:
Aldridge v. Aldridge et al.
[No. 20,709.
Filed February 21, 1968.
Rehearing denied March 26, 1968.
Transfer dismissed March 28, 1969.]
Bayliff, Harrigan & Cord, of Kokomo, for appellant.
Max C. Shirley, of Kokomo, for appellees.

Opinion:
Carson, C. J.
— This is an appeal from the Howard Superior Court. The action below was brought by the appellant against the trustee for distribution of certain trust funds. The appel lee-trustee, filed a counterclaim for fees as trustee and attorney fees for himself. The co-appellee also filed a counterclaim in four (4) paragraphs.
The court below entered a summary judgment in favor of the co-appellee, Marianna D. Aldridge. This summary judgment was entered on the 16th of October, 1966. A motion for a new trial was filed and was overruled by the court on December 1, 1966. The record shows that the transcript and assignment of errors were filed in this court on February 3, 1967.
In the dissenting opinion, in the case of Kapusta v. DePuy Mfg. Co. (1967), 141 Ind. App. 479, 229 N. E. 2d 828, 832, Judge Faulconer held that a summary judgment was not a trial, and that the transcript and assignment of errors should be filed within ninety (90) days from the date of the entry of the summary judgment by the trial court, and not from the date of the court's ruling on a motion for a new trial.
After an examination of that dissenting opinion and a further review of the authorities in other jurisdictions, and in the Federal Court, we conclude that the motion for a new trial was improper, as the summary judgment proceeding is not a trial. Collins v. Toombs (1946), 271 App. Div. 160, 63 N.Y.S. 2d 545; Weisberg v. Perl (1954), Fla., 73 So. 2d 56; Ottoman v. Interstate Fire and Casualty Company (1960), 171 Neb. 148, 105 N. W. 2d 583; Parmelee v. Chicago Eye Shield Co. (1946), 157 F. 2d 582, 168 A.L.R. 1130.
We conclude, therefore, that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of Rule 2-2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Indiana and that, therefore, this appeal should be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Cooper, J. and Faulconer, J., concur.
Prime, J., concurs in result with opinion.
Note. — Reported in 233 N. E. 2d 781.