Opinion ID: 2181249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment filed September 28, 1968 was as follows:

Text: Plaintiff moves the court to enter summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, as provided by rules 237-240, and as grounds therefor states: 1. This is a suit on account for a liquidated sum. 2. Affidavit required by law is on file. 3. Defendant has entered its appearance. Plaintiff in brief and argument concedes that the motion did not follow rule 237, Rules of Civil Procedure, as revised. See chapter 475, Laws of the 62nd General Assembly. We quote:     (for some reason an old form was used) but it did move the court to enter summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, the essential part of both the old and new rule.    We need not discuss an admitted inadequacy. We do not agree that a naked request for judgment is enough. Under both the old rule and the revised rule the motion was inadequate and contradictory. The motion says the suit is on account for a liquidated sum. Plaintiff says the suit is for breach of contract. The affidavit referred to was not on file. A long narrative affidavit was filed later. It sets forth what plaintiff's credit manager says was the background, chronology, intent and result of the transaction. Except for conclusions there is no claim or suggestion that defendant had no defense. The trial court's overruling of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed.