Anderson v. Lagow

• Decision Date: 27 May 1942
• Docket Number: 27711.
• Citation: 41 N.E.2d 798,220 Ind. 363
• Parties: ANDERSON et al. v. LAGOW et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

41 N.E.2d 798

220 Ind. 363

ANDERSON et al. v. LAGOW et al.

No. 27711.

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 27, 1942

Appeal from Circuit Court, Knox County; Sherman G. Davenport Special judge.

Hovey C. Kirk, of Princeton, and Shuler McCormick, of Vincennes for appellants.

Kessinger Hill & Arterburn, of Vincennes, for Harriett Lagow, etc.

SWAIM Judge.

On January 15, 1942, a judgment was entered refusing the probate of a purported last will and testament which the appellants had offered for probate. On the same day the motion for a new trial was overruled, the appellants prayed for and were granted leave to appeal and filed an appeal bond which was approved by the court.

On April 7, 1942, more than sixty days after filing the bond and without any extension of time, the transcript was filed in the office of the clerk of this court. No attempt was made to perfect the appeal as a vacation appeal by serving notice pursuant to the provisions of Burns' 1933, § 2-3206, Baldwin's 1934, § 482.

The appellees appeared specially for the purpose of filing a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the appellants had failed to file the transcript within sixty days after filing their appeal bond, or within any extended period of time granted by the court, and had likewise failed to take any steps to perfect the appeal as a vacation appeal.

The appellants contend that by Rule 2-2 of the 1940 Revision of the Rules of the Supreme Court the provision of Burns' 1933, § 2-3204; Baldwin's 1934, § 480, which requires that in taking an appeal during the term the transcript be filed within sixty days after the bond is filed, or within such extended time as the court may allow, has been abrogated; that in taking an appeal during the term the transcript may now be filed at any time within ninety days after the judgment or after the ruling on the motion for a new trial.

As authority for their contention the appellants cite Indiana Pleading and Practice by Gavit, Vol. 1, 1940 Revision, § 52, which states that while it was not clear whether the 1937 Revision repudiated the statutory requirement that the transcript be filed within sixty days after filing the bond, said requirement was repudiated by the 1940 Revision because Rule 2-2 of the 1940 Rules 'in terms covers the subject of the time allowed for taking an appeal and omits the language of Rule 2 of the 1937 Revision.' Section 53 of the same text, however, quotes Rule 2-3 of the 1940 Revision, states that this rule covers the same subject matter as Rule 2 of the 1937 Revision and then says, 'It is believed that the change in the language is immaterial.' The same text also admits (p. 199) that the first sentence of Rule 2 of the 1940 Revision 'states in substance the first sentence of Rule 1 of the 1937 Revision' and that 'the change in language does not change the law.'

Rule 2-1 of the 1940 Rules expressly provides that with the exception of Ch. 76, Acts of 1937, 'all other rules of appellate procedure and practice adopted by statutory enactment and in effect of June 21, 1937, shall continue in full force and effect, except as herein otherwise provided.'

When the 1937 Rules were adopted by this court it was recognized that the time for taking appeals should be shortened. At that time it was provided by statute (Burns' 1933, § 2-3202, Baldwin's 1934, § 472), that appeals in all cases must be taken within one hundred eighty days from the time the judgment is rendered or within one hundred eighty days after the removal of the disability where the appellant is under legal disability at the time the judgment is rendered.

Rule 1 of the 1937 Revision, superseded this statutory provision by shortening the maximum time for taking appeals from one hundred eighty days to ninety days. There was no intention to change the law as stated in the first sentence of Rule 1 of the 1937 Revision by the first sentence of Rule 2-2 of the 1940 Revision. This court has held that an appeal is 'taken' when the transcript and assignment of errors are filed in the office of the Clerk of this court. Smythe v. Boswell, 1888, 117 Ind. 365, 20 N.E. 263; Lake Erie, etc., Ry. Co. v. Watkins, 1902, 157 Ind. 600, 62 N.E. 443. When it was provided in said Rule 2-2 that the transcript and assignment of errors must be filed within ninety days after the judgment or ruling on the motion for a new trial, it was only intended that such provision should shorten the time of taking an appeal in all cases to not more than ninety days. It was not intended that such provision should be interpreted as lengthening the time in any case where a statute provided for a shorter time than ninety days. In Roebuck et al. v. Essex, 1938, 214 Ind. 637, 17 N.E.2d 469, 470, we said, 'the purpose of rule 1 [1937 Revision] was to reduce the maximum time for appeals. The rule must be treated as controlling all appeals except those governed by statutes fixing a shorter time.' There is nothing in the 1940 Revision of the Rules to justify a different interpretation of Rule 2-2 thereof.

Rule 3 of the 1937 Revision expressly provided that, 'If notice of an appeal not taken in term shall be given below, it shall be sufficient notice if the transcript is filed in the office of the clerk within the time provided for taking appeals under Rule...