City of Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo Heat, Light & Power Co.
This text of 81 N.W. 426 (City of Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo Heat, Light & Power Co.) 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.
Opinion
The delay in settling the case was not due to any fault of appellant. The order for the extension of the stenographer’s notes was given immediately after the decree, and at every stage the appellant appears to have used all reasonable diligence. The delay was owing to the default of an officer of the court, and is excused, under our former rulings. Cameron v. Calkins, 43 Mich. 191; Gram v. Wasey, 45 Mich. 223; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Chambers, 89 Mich. 5. See, also, Waterman v. Bailey, 111 Mich. 571.
The case of Harrison v. Van Buren Circuit Judge, McGrath, Mand. Cas. No. 965, relied on by appellee’s [490]*490counsel, is not like this case, as it appears that no order for extension of notes was given in that case, which the stenographer was bound to act upon, until after more than four months had elapsed after the decree.
The case, as settled, should not be stricken from the files, nor should the case be dismissed, for the reasons stated in the motion.
Motion denied, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
81 N.W. 426, 122 Mich. 489, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-kalamazoo-v-kalamazoo-heat-light-power-co-mich-1899.