Cameron v. Calkins

5 N.W. 292, 43 Mich. 191, 1880 Mich. LEXIS 764
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 7, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 5 N.W. 292 (Cameron v. Calkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cameron v. Calkins, 5 N.W. 292, 43 Mich. 191, 1880 Mich. LEXIS 764 (Mich. 1880).

Opinion

Marston, C. J.

A motion was made in this case to dismiss the appeal because the case was not settled within three months from and after the date of the entry of the decree under Act No. 26, Public Acts 1877, p. 17.

The witnesses were examined in open court, and the appellant shows that he applied to and used due diligence to obtain from the official stenographer a copy of the testimony, but was unable so to do within the period named. We are of opinion that the limitation of time fixed by this statute cannot be applied to a case like the present. Cases must frequently arise where, owing to sickness or inability of the circuit judge or stenographer, the appellant would be wholly unable to have his case settled within the period fixed, and we cannot think the Legislature intended to deprive a party of his right to an appeal because not taken within a time fixed from circumstances beyond his control. Where it is within the power of a party to have his case settled, and he does not do so, he may well be held bound thereby; but where the delay is caused by officers of the court over whom he has no control, and without fault or want of due diligence on his part, we are of opinion that a settlement made after the period of three months will be good.

The motion must be denied.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Piggins v. Fellinger
28 N.W.2d 273 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1947)
Wagner v. State
24 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 113 (Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas, 1922)
Bishop v. Judge of Recorder's Court
174 N.W. 602 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1919)
In re Local Improvement Districts Numbers 29 to 37
108 Wash. 211 (Washington Supreme Court, 1919)
Fischer v. Davis
133 P. 910 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1913)
Perkins v. Perkins
140 N.W. 161 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1913)
City of Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo Heat, Light & Power Co.
81 N.W. 426 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1899)
Waterman v. Bailey
69 N.W. 1109 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Chambers
50 N.W. 741 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 N.W. 292, 43 Mich. 191, 1880 Mich. LEXIS 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cameron-v-calkins-mich-1880.