Lange v. Myers, 48418
| Decision Date | 20 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 48418,48418 |
| Citation | 244 Iowa 1316,60 N.W.2d 526 |
| Parties | LANGE v. MYERS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
J. J. Hyde, of Elkader, for defendant-appellee.
A. E. Sheridan, of Waukon, for plaintiff-appellant.
On April 22, 1953, the trial court directed a verdict for defendant. Final judgment thereon was entered May 21 and notice of appeal was given that same day. In the meantime however (May 9) the plaintiff had procured a transcript of the evidence from the court reporter.
Nothing was filed after notice of appeal until August 19, ninety days later, when plaintiff filed a typewritten 'Record,' containing over 100 pages of legal cap (8 1/2 X 13). Thirty-eight pages are devoted to pleadings, motions and rulings thereon, unabstracted (except for omission of title headings and signatures). There were the petition, defendant's motion to dismiss, strike and for more specific statement and ruling thereon, an amendment to petition, answer, counterclaim with lengthy exhibits, plaintiff's motion to strike and for more specific statement and ruling overruling same, reply with lengthy exhibits, motion to strike and for more specific statement with ruling thereon, an amended and substituted reply, motion to strike with ruling thereon and finally an amendment to reply. There was also a pre-trial hearing order set out in full.
Approximately sixty pages are devoted to the testimony, mostly in question and answer form with objections and rulings verbatim.
The leisurely progress of the litigation is indicated by the fact that the original petition was filed November 13, 1951, and the final amendment to reply on March 25, 1953.
The present motion of defendant to dismiss the appeal was filed September 4, 1953, and it is based on plaintiff-appellant's alleged failure to comply with Rules 340(a) and 342(a), R.C.P., 58 I.C.A., in that he failed to file his abstract promptly; and failed properly to abstract the evidence.
I. Rule 340(a) provides: 'Promptly (emphasis supplied) after taking an appeal * * * appellant shall file * * * duplicate typewritten abstract (sic) of so much of the record * * * as is material to the appeal * * *.'
Paragrph (c) of the same Rule provides that amendment may be proposed by any other party to the appeal (within twenty days 'or such longer time as the trial court may allow or the parties agree to in writing') 'proposing corrections, substitutions or additions' and that the 'judge before whom the case was tried' is to settle any differences 'to the end that the abstract correctly shows the evidence and proceedings * * * and is in form as provided by these rules.'
There are other rule provisions requiring omission of formal parts of all exhibits and all formal or irrelevant parts; and finally for the printing of the result as finally settled, same to constitute the 'record on which the cause shall be submitted on the appeal.'
By no stretch of judicial leniency can we say here a 'duplicate typewritten abstract' was filed 'promptly.' Rule 342 requires filing of the printed Record 'within ninety days after filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dean v. Dean
-
Luebke v. Freimuth
...55 N.W.2d 539; and even more importantly is it true in the matter of condensing the Record on appeal, Rule 340, R.C.P.; Lange v. Myers, 244 Iowa 1316, 60 N.W.2d 526; Thorne v. Reiser, 245 Iowa 123, 126 et seq., 60 N.W.2d 784, within proper bounds. We know of course the difficulty of condens......
-
Thorne v. Reiser, 48362
...after the filing of the printed Record. We recently sustained a motion to dimiss in a somewhat similar case, October 20, 1953. Lange v. Myers, Iowa, 60 N.W.2d 526. The disregard of our rules was no worse in that case than is the situation here. However, a motion to dismiss was made at an ea......