Bailey v. Drake
| Decision Date | 07 June 1895 |
| Citation | 40 P. 631,12 Wash. 99 |
| Parties | BAILEY v. DRAKE. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; W. H. Pritchard, Judge.
Action by Alexander S. Bailey against Charles M. Drake. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff, and from an order granting a new trial he appeals. Affirmed.
F Campbell, for appellant.
Hiram F. Garretson, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial. The verdict which was set aside by said order was rendered on the 1st day of December. The motion for a new trial was not filed until the 4th day of December. On account of the delay in its filing, the appellant objected to its being heard. Upon such objection being made, the court, on motion of the respondent made an order extending the time in which the motion for a new trial might be filed so as to include the said 4th day of December, and, having done so, proceeded to the consideration of the motion, and, for reasons satisfactory to it, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. Appellant relies upon two grounds to reverse the order: (1) That it was beyond the power of the court to extend the time in which to file the motion for a new trial after the expiration of the time fixed by the statute; (2) that if the court had such power it did not exercise it in this case by making an order to take effect from its date, but instead thereof entered an order which by its terms was to take effect as of a prior date. The appellant cites numerous cases to support his first contention, but none of them have any force under our statute, which, unlike those of the states in which the decisions relied upon were rendered, specially confers the power upon the court to enlarge the time for the making of any motion or giving notice thereof, after the expiration of the statutory time as well as before. The language of section 24, c. 127, Laws 1893, upon this subject, is as follows "*** And the court may enlarge or extend the time, for good cause shown, within which by statute any act is to be done, proceeding had or taken, notice of paper filed or served, or may, on such terms as are just, permit the same to be done or supplied after the time therefor has expired ***" And there can be no escape from the conclusion that the legislature intended by its enactment to confer authority upon the courts to extend the time in which acts of the kind under consideration could be done, after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blonde v. Merriam
... ... ( Simpson v ... Budd, 91 Cal. 488; Burton v. Todd, 68 Cal. 485; ... Harper v. Minor, 27 Cal. 113; see also Bailey v ... Drake, 12 Wash. 99.) Again, by Section 4438, Comp. Stat ... 1910, it is required that in every action the court shall ... disregard any ... ...
-
In re Judicial Ditch No. 52, Norman & Polk Counties
...provisions are held to give the power to hear a motion for a new trial for cause after the expiration of a statutory time, Bailey v. Drake, 12 Wash. 99, 40 Pac. 631; unless some mandatory language of the statute precludes such a result, as in Le Tourneau v. Board of County Commissioners, 78......
-
In re Judicial Ditch No. 52, Norman And Polk Counties
...provisions are held to give the power to hear a motion for a new trial for cause after the expiration of a statutory time, (Bailey v. Drake, 12 Wash. 99), unless some mandatory language of the statute precludes a result, as in Le Tourneau v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Aitkin County, 78 Minn. 8......
-
In the Matter of Judicial Ditch No. 52
...provisions are held to give the power to hear a motion for a new trial for cause after the expiration of a statutory time, (Bailey v. Drake, 12 Wash. 99), unless some mandatory language of the statute precludes such a result, as in Le Tourneau v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Aitkin County, 78 Mi......