Hill v. Hill

• Decision Date: 25 October 1897
• Citation: 72 N.W. 597,114 Mich. 599
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: HILL v. HILL

72 N.W. 597

114 Mich. 599

HILL v. HILL

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 25, 1897

Error to circuit court, Wayne county.

Action by Bridget Hill against Matilda Hill. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant brings error. Motion to dismiss writ of error. Granted.

Geo. X. M. Collier and Chas. W. Casgrain (Elliott G. Stevenson, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles Flowers and John E. Moloney (John J. Speed, of counsel), for appellee.

LONG C.J.

Judgment was entered in this cause in the Wayne circuit court February 6, 1896. On May 25, 1897, an order was made by this court extending the time for issuing writ of error six months from February 6, 1897. That time elapsed August 6, 1897. The writ of error was issued out of this court on August 17, 1897. Motion is now made to dismiss the writ of error, for the reason that it did not issue within the time fixed by 3 How Ann. St. � 8686. The defendant (appellant) contends that inasmuch as a motion for new trial was made and entered in the cause, the time fixed by the above statute did not begin to run until the motion for new trial had been decided in the circuit court; that the statute must be read in connection with Act No. 134, Pub. Acts 1893. It appears that a motion was made for new trial July 26, 1896, and that the same was denied August 24, 1896. Section 8686, 3 How. Ann. St provides that: "All writs of error upon any judgment or final determination, rendered in any cause, in any court of law and of record in this state, shall be brought within one year after the rendering of such judgment or final determination made and not after, except in cases specified in the next two sections: provided, the time in which writs of error may be taken out may be extended not exceeding six months by the supreme court or by one of the supreme court justices at chambers, when any party has been prevented from taking out the same by circumstances not under his control," etc. This act was passed in 1889. Act 134, Pub. Acts 1893, provides that: "In all cases hereafter taken to the supreme court on writ of error or appeal where a motion for a new trial has been previously refused by the trial judge, the party appealing the same may incorporate in the bill of exceptions a record of all proceedings had on said motion for a new trial, including the reasons given by the trial judge in refusing to grant said new trial. Exceptions may be taken and error assigned on the decision of the circuit judge in refusing such motion, and the same shall be reviewed by the supreme court." Counsel for appellant now contends that this last-mentioned act has enlarged the time in which a writ of error may be sued out under the former statute where a motion for a new trial has been made, and that the time for taking out such writ of error under such circumstances does not begin to run until the motion is...