TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Branch Circuit Judge

Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Ry. Co. v. Branch Circuit Judge, 116 Mich. 399 (1898)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 22, 1898
Judges
Grant, Other
Citations
116 Mich. 399
Headnotes
Mandamus — Bill of Exceptions — Settlement. Mandarrms will not issue to compel the circuit judge to settle a bill of exceptions after the expiration of the time provided for by Circuit Court Rule No. 47, in the absence of a stipulation extending the time.
Summary
Mandamus by the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company to compel George L. Yaple, circuit judge of Branch county, to settle a bill of exceptions. On March 19, 1897, verdict and judgment were entered against the relator. On March 20th an ex parte order was made granting relator until July 1st to settle a bill of exceptions. On June 26th relator entered a motion for a new trial, which was denied September 7th. On July 1st, September 9th, and October 4th ex parte orders were made extending the time to settle the bill, the last order ■extending it to November 1st. On September 9th a copy of the proposed bill was served upon the plaintiff’s attorneys. On October 6th proposed amendments were served. During October and November several letters passed between the respective parties in Tegard to the matter. On October 25th the attorneys for plaintiff wrote the attorney for the relator, stating that they had heard nothing from the proposed amendments, and they were anxious to get the .case settled and heard at the next term of court, and said, “We shall feel like opposing any extension of time whereby the settlement is to be delayed.” On November 23d one of the attorneys for plaintiff wrote relator’s attorney, refusing to take any further steps towards settling fhe bill of exceptions. On December 2d notice was given to settle the bill before the respondent on December 6th. December 13th relator made a special motion to extend the time to settle the bill. This was heard December 20th and denied January 31st. The relator now asks for the writ of mandamus to compel respondent to settle the bill.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Grant

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). Cir. Ct. Rule 47 gives a party absolutely 20 days in which to settle a bill of exceptions, and the right to further time, not exceeding 60 days; but no further time shall be granted except for good cause shown by affidavit on special motion after notice, or on the written stipulation of the parties. There was no written stipulation, and the circuit judge, who had all the facts before him, refused to settle the bill. The correspondence did not amount to a stipulation extending the time, and there was no order made by the court extending the time after November 1st. We cannot set aside the ruling of the circuit judge without virtually abrogating Rule 47.

The writ is denied.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1898: 11900: 11907: 11909: 21912: 21915: 11917: 11918: 118982026peak 1909 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hayes v. Ionia Circuit Judge84 N.W. 141 (Mich. 1900)
  2. Roberge v. De Lisle122 N.W. 362 (Mich. 1909)
  3. Smilansky v. Wayne Circuit Judge186 Mich. 463 (1915)
  4. Yerkes v. Antrim Circuit Judge166 N.W. 976 (Mich. 1918)
  5. Carrier v. Emmet Circuit Judge119 N.W. 575 (Mich. 1909)
  6. Stockwell v. Eaton Circuit Judge137 N.W. 525 (Mich. 1912)

Most recent

  1. Yerkes v. Antrim Circuit Judge166 N.W. 976 (Mich. 1918)
  2. People v. Manistee Circuit Judge161 N.W. 141 (Mich. 1917)
  3. Smilansky v. Wayne Circuit Judge186 Mich. 463 (1915)
  4. Stockwell v. Eaton Circuit Judge137 N.W. 525 (Mich. 1912)
  5. Burgess v. Wayne Circuit Judge137 N.W. 247 (Mich. 1912)
  6. Roberge v. De Lisle122 N.W. 362 (Mich. 1909)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list