Jones v. Evans
| Decision Date | 15 June 1911 |
| Docket Number | 2213 |
| Citation | 116 P. 333,39 Utah 291 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | JONES v. EVANS |
APPEAL from District Court, Third District. Hon. C. W. Morse, Judge.
Action by Daniel Jones against Ellen Joice Evans.
Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Apppeal dismissed.
Hurd & Hurd for appellant.
Rawlins Ray & Rawlins for respondent.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine it, for the reason that the appeal was not taken in time. Comp. Laws Utah 1907, section 3301, provides as follows: "An appeal may be taken within six months from the entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Section 3329 provides that the time for taking an appeal may not be extended. The judgment appealed from was entered on the 8th day of June, 1909. A motion for a new trial was overruled on June 2, 1910, and the notice of appeal was served and filed December 7, 1910, or more than six months after the motion for a new trial was overruled. This court has repeatedly held that a judgment becomes final for the purpose of an appeal on the overruling of a motion for a new trial. (Watson v. Mayberry, 15 Utah 265, 49 P. 479; Stoll v. Daly M. Co., 19 Utah 271, 57 P. 295; Felt v. Cook, 31 Utah 299, 87 P. 1092; Everett v. Jones, 32 Utah 489, 91 P. 360; Warnock, etc. v. Peterson, etc., 35 Utah 542, 101 P. 699.) Appellant, therefore, could have appealed immediately after the motion for a new trial was overruled on June 2d, and, by excluding that day, could have done so up to and including December 3, 1910, but not later:
Appellant, however, contends that the six months within which she was required to appeal did not commence to run until she was served with a notice that the motion for a new trial had been overruled. It is not claimed that there is any express statutory provision to this effect, but it is contended that, because section 3286 provides that where a case is tried to the court without a jury the time for preparing and serving a bill of exceptions begins to run only from the time of the service of notice of the decision, and that, under section 3294, the time for serving and filing a notice of motion for a new trial runs only from the time of service of such notice on the attorney of the adverse party, by analogy, therefore, notice of the decision is also necessary for the purpose of fixing the time when the six months under section 3301, supra, begins to run.
We cannot agree with this contention. Where the time within which a certain act must be done is by statute required to be done from the entry of judgment, or from the overruling of a motion, the time begins to run when the ruling occurred or the entry is made, and unless notice of such ruling or entry is required by statute the courts ordinarily cannot require it. The parties to an action, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, must at least take notice that the court has finally disposed of the case and govern themselves accordingly. In view that the legislature provided for the service of notice of the decision of the court to set the time running for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petersen v. Ohio Copper Co.
...the court speaking through Mr. Justice Straup. The language employed is exactly the same as that employed in Felt v. Cook, supra. In Jones v. Evans, supra, opinion by Mr. Justice Frick, the first headnote reads: "Under Comp. Laws 1907, § 3301, providing that an appeal may be taken within si......
-
Fuller v. Ferrin
... ... 49 P. 479; Stoll v. Daly Min. Co., 19 Utah ... 271, 57 P. 295; Felt v. Cook, 31 Utah 299, ... 87 P. 1092; Everett v. Jones, 32 Utah 489, ... 91 P. 360; Warnock v. Peterson, 35 Utah ... 542, 101 P. 699. In view of these decisions the judgment in ... the present case ... is not the case. This identical question was specifically ... determined by this court in Jones v. Evans, ... 39 Utah 291, 116 P. 333, in which case it was held that the ... time within which to take an appeal begins to run from the ... entry of the ... ...
-
State ex rel. Lorntzen v. Hansen
... ... Under the former rulings of this court ... construing that section we are without jurisdiction to ... consider the appeal. Jones v. Evans, 39 ... Utah 291, 116 P. 333; Lindley v. Bradshaw, ... 45 Utah 83, 141 P. 300; Fuller v. Ferrin, ... 51 Utah 105, 168 P. 1179 ... ...
-
Tribune Reporter Printing Co. v. Homer
... ... alterius," it nevertheless falls within its principle ... It has been so considered and applied by this court in the ... case of Jones v. Evans, 39 Utah 291, 293, ... 116 P. 333. Appellant took his appeal within six months from ... the time he received written notice of the ... ...