Earnshaw v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Earnshaw v. Wayne Circuit Judge

199 N.W. 659, 228 Mich. 82, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 744

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 10, 1924

DocketCalendar 31,310

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 N.W. 659 (Earnshaw v. Wayne 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

Earnshaw v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 199 N.W. 659, 228 Mich. 82, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 744 (Mich. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

*83 Clark, C. J.

On September 14th, the trial judge announced that decree would be entered dismissing the bill of complaint of Earnshaw et al., plaintiffs, filed against Koehler et al., defendants. On September 24th, counsel for the respective parties in that cause appeared before the judge to settle a decree. After discussion, a decree was agreed upon and approved in writing as to form by plaintiffs’ counsel, and on that day the decree was signed, filed and entered. There is no claim that the decree was entered in vacation, so that notice thereof was required under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 13754. Plaintiffs had 20 days from the entry of the decree in which to file claim of appeal and to pay the statutory fee. 8 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 13754,13755; Circuit Court Rule No. 66. The claim was not filed and the fee was not paid until October 18th. The judge therefore declined to settle the case on appeal. Relief by mandamus is prayed.

That, by the failure to file claim of appeal and to pay the fee within the period of 20 days, the right of appeal was lost beyond the power of the court to restore it, is settled by Walker v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 226 Mich. 393.

Writ denied,, with costs to defendant.

McDonald; Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and WlEST, JJ., concurred.

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

*83 Clark, C. J.

On September 14th, the trial judge announced that decree would be entered dismissing the bill of complaint of Earnshaw et al., plaintiffs, filed against Koehler et al., defendants. On September 24th, counsel for the respective parties in that cause appeared before the judge to settle a decree. After discussion, a decree was agreed upon and approved in writing as to form by plaintiffs’ counsel, and on that day the decree was signed, filed and entered. There is no claim that the decree was entered in vacation, so that notice thereof was required under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 13754. Plaintiffs had 20 days from the entry of the decree in which to file claim of appeal and to pay the statutory fee. 8 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 13754,13755; Circuit Court Rule No. 66. The claim was not filed and the fee was not paid until October 18th. The judge therefore declined to settle the case on appeal. Relief by mandamus is prayed.

That, by the failure to file claim of appeal and to pay the fee within the period of 20 days, the right of appeal was lost beyond the power of the court to restore it, is settled by Walker v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 226 Mich. 393.

Writ denied,, with costs to defendant.

McDonald; Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and WlEST, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 N.W. 659, 228 Mich. 82, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earnshaw-v-wayne-circuit-judge-mich-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack