Inman v. City of Cheyenne

• Decision Date: 05 March 1929
• Docket Number: 1505
• Parties: INMAN v. CITY OF CHEYENNE [*]
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

275 P. 115

40 Wyo. 72

INMAN v. CITY OF CHEYENNE ^[*]

No. 1505

Supreme Court of Wyoming

March 5, 1929

ERROR to District Court, Albany County; VOLNEY J. TIDBALL, Judge.

Proceedings between C. R. Inman and the City of Cheyenne. From the judgment C. R. Inman brings error. On motion to dismiss.

Motion dismissed.

Sam M Thompson, City Attorney, William C. Kinkead and M. A. Kline for the motion.

Plaintiff in error failed to serve and file briefs within the time prescribed by the rules, or to apply for an extension of time before the expiration of time for filing briefs, therefore the proceedings in error should be dismissed. Cronkhite v. Bothwell, 3 Wyo. 739, 31 P. 400; Robertson v Shorrow, 10 Wyo. 368, 69 P. 1; Laramie Co. v. Goshen Co., 23 Wyo. 207, 147 P. 621; Boner v. Fall River Co. Bank, 25 Wyo. 88, 164 P. 1140; Nelson v. Sunset Oil Co., 36 Wyo. 245, 254 P. 127; Brown v Brown, 29 Wyo. 59, 210 P. 390. The only exceptions found in the decided cases from this court are Phillips v. Brill, 15 Wyo. 521, 90 P. 443; Whiting v. Straup, 15 Wyo. 530, 90 P. 445; Fried v. Guiberson, 28 Wyo. 208, 201 P. 854, but in those cases justifiable reasons are shown differing from the facts in the case at bar.

Hagens & Murane and J. R. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error.

OPINION

Per Curiam.

A motion to dismiss the appeal herein has been filed, on the ground that the plaintiff in error failed to file his brief in time. The petition in error in this cause was filed on January 24, 1928. According to Rule 15 of this court, briefs must be filed by the plaintiff in error within sixty days after filing his petition in error. That time, accordingly, expired on March 25th, 1928. No briefs and no application for an extension of time were filed within that time. Such application, however, was filed on April 11, 1928, and the grounds and excuse given for not filing the briefs in time are that counsel for plaintiff in error was unable to procure the record in the case. That may have been a valid reason for not filing the briefs in time, but it was not a valid excuse why no application for extension of time was made in the proper time, and no showing is made why such application could not have been made within time. We are accordingly constrained to sustain the motion to dismiss, in accordance with Rule 21. Robertson v. Shorow & Co., 10 Wyo. 368, 69 P. 1; Cronkhite v. Bothwell, 3 Wyo. 739, 31 P. 400.

Dismissed.

---------

Notes:

^[*] References: Appeal and Error 3 CJ § 1604 p....