Cook v. Kent Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Cook v. Kent Circuit Judge

224 N.W. 348, 246 Mich. 536, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 930

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 8, 1929

DocketCalendar 33,967

StatusPublished

This text of 224 N.W. 348 (Cook v. Kent Circuit Judge) 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

Cook v. Kent Circuit Judge, 224 N.W. 348, 246 Mich. 536, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 930 (Mich. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

McDonald, J.

The plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to set aside ayi order vacating a previous order which granted an exten *537 sion of time to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause entitled Armstrong v. Cook.

On March 12, 1928, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. On the same day, a stay of 20 days was entered. On March 31,1928, the stenographer’s certificate was filed and a further stay of 20 days was granted. This stay expired on April 20, 1928. On April 23d, another stay of 20 days was ordered. On May 5,1928, a further extension of 60 days was entered. This stay expired on July 6, 1928. On June 29, 1928, a motion was made to set aside the order of May 5,1928. The motion was granted. An order vacating the order of May 5th was entered. The plaintiffs ask for a mandamus to compel the defendant to set aside his last order.

In setting aside the order of May 5th, the defendant was of the opinion that when that order was entered the court was without jurisdiction to settle a bill of exceptions. In this he was mistaken.

During the 20-day period following the entry of judgment, a stenographer’s certificate was filed and a further stay granted. By properly' securing an order during this period, the court retained jurisdiction and thereafter the matter of further extensions of time rested in its discretion. Walker v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 226 Mich. 393.

The court had jurisdiction to make the order of May 5th. He made it after a sworn showing that the stenographer had not been' able to complete a transcript of the record. This was good cause, and justified the extension granted. The record presents no reasonable excuse for vacating it.

If necessary, the writ of mandamus will issue.

North, C. J., and Fead, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.

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

McDonald, J.

The plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to set aside ayi order vacating a previous order which granted an exten *537 sion of time to settle a bill of exceptions in a cause entitled Armstrong v. Cook.

On March 12, 1928, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. On the same day, a stay of 20 days was entered. On March 31,1928, the stenographer’s certificate was filed and a further stay of 20 days was granted. This stay expired on April 20, 1928. On April 23d, another stay of 20 days was ordered. On May 5,1928, a further extension of 60 days was entered. This stay expired on July 6, 1928. On June 29, 1928, a motion was made to set aside the order of May 5,1928. The motion was granted. An order vacating the order of May 5th was entered. The plaintiffs ask for a mandamus to compel the defendant to set aside his last order.

In setting aside the order of May 5th, the defendant was of the opinion that when that order was entered the court was without jurisdiction to settle a bill of exceptions. In this he was mistaken.

During the 20-day period following the entry of judgment, a stenographer’s certificate was filed and a further stay granted. By properly' securing an order during this period, the court retained jurisdiction and thereafter the matter of further extensions of time rested in its discretion. Walker v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 226 Mich. 393.

The court had jurisdiction to make the order of May 5th. He made it after a sworn showing that the stenographer had not been' able to complete a transcript of the record. This was good cause, and justified the extension granted. The record presents no reasonable excuse for vacating it.

If necessary, the writ of mandamus will issue.

North, C. J., and Fead, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 N.W. 348, 246 Mich. 536, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-kent-circuit-judge-mich-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack