Kitchin v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Kitchin v. Wayne Circuit Judge

198 N.W. 208, 226 Mich. 645, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 583

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 19, 1924

DocketCalendar 31,255

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 N.W. 208 (Kitchin 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

Kitchin v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 198 N.W. 208, 226 Mich. 645, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 583 (Mich. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

Decree was entered October 31st. Plaintiff sought appeal. A transcript was ordered from the stenographer. It was furnished on November 12th. On November 20th, plaintiff filed in the cause motion for extension of time to settle the case on appeal, showing cause and giving notice that the same would be brought on for hearing before the judge on November 26th. The motion was denied. Plaintiff prays relief by mandamus.

At any time between the entry of the decree and the furnishing of the transcript, an extension of time might have been had on ex parte application to the judge and on production of the certificate of the stenographer. 3 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 13757, 12634; Circuit Court Rule No. 66. ' After November 12th, and during the part of the 20-day period then remaining, an extension might have been had on such ex parte application and production of the transcript in lieu of the stenographer’s certificate. But no extension of time was granted or obtained within the period of 20 days. Hence, the júdge was right in holding that he was without power to grant an extension after the expiration of the 20-day period. See Walker v. Wayne Circuit Judge, ante, 393.

Writ denied, with costs to defendant.

McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred. .

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

Clark, C. J.

Decree was entered October 31st. Plaintiff sought appeal. A transcript was ordered from the stenographer. It was furnished on November 12th. On November 20th, plaintiff filed in the cause motion for extension of time to settle the case on appeal, showing cause and giving notice that the same would be brought on for hearing before the judge on November 26th. The motion was denied. Plaintiff prays relief by mandamus.

At any time between the entry of the decree and the furnishing of the transcript, an extension of time might have been had on ex parte application to the judge and on production of the certificate of the stenographer. 3 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 13757, 12634; Circuit Court Rule No. 66. ' After November 12th, and during the part of the 20-day period then remaining, an extension might have been had on such ex parte application and production of the transcript in lieu of the stenographer’s certificate. But no extension of time was granted or obtained within the period of 20 days. Hence, the júdge was right in holding that he was without power to grant an extension after the expiration of the 20-day period. See Walker v. Wayne Circuit Judge, ante, 393.

Writ denied, with costs to defendant.

McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.W. 208, 226 Mich. 645, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitchin-v-wayne-circuit-judge-mich-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack