Spencer v. McMaster
Decision Date | 08 March 1884 |
Parties | SPENCER et al. v. McMASTER |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court.
Motion denied.
Baird Campbell & Peck, for appellants.
Corlett & Rosendale, for appellee.
OPINION
On the tenth day of January, A. D. 1884, at this term of the court as the court was proceeding to hear this case upon its merits, the fact was made to appear that no abstract of the case, as required by rule 12 of this court, had been printed. Rule 12 reads: "No case will hereafter be heard by this court until the appellant or plaintiff in error shall deliver to the clerk of the court fourteen printed copies of an abstract of so much of the record as is necessary," etc. Thereupon, after consideration, the court ordered this cause dismissed from the docket because of the failure of the counsel for the appellants to comply with rule 12 of this court. On January 11, 1884, the appellants, by counsel, filed a motion to reinstate the cause, and supported it by the affidavits of J. C. Baird, A. W. Campbell, and William W. Peck and the appellee by counsel filed a counter-affidavit, that of W. W. Corlett, and the application for reinstatement and rehearing has been argued.
The appellants undertake to excuse their failure to file the printed abstract, as required by rule 12, on two grounds: First, that one of the counsel supposed no abstract necessary under rule 6, which provides that where actions are dismissed in the district court, by reason of a demurrer to plaintiff's petition being sustained, it shall be sufficient to carry the case up by filing a certified copy of the record with the proofs. A law proceeding is begun by a petition; a chancery action, by a bill of complaint; so, of course, that rule has nothing to do with dispensing with the abstract in a chancery case.
Another excuse offered by counsel for appellants is that counsel for appellants and appellee had an understanding or agreement which was to dispense with the necessity of an abstract, and yet counsel for appellants, while seeking to excuse themselves for the lack of an abstract in their brief as presented, refer to an appeal book (it was an appeal or error book before the abstract was substituted by the rule) five times in print, and then erase it with their pen, and in writing put on their brief in these places where the words "appeal book" occur, "record." No appeal book was printed separately from the briefs.
The answer to the excuse that the appellants and the appellee had an understanding or agreement which was to dispense with the necessity of a printed abstract, is threefold: First, to use the words of Mr. Justice BLAIR, who participated in the conference in this cause and has left with the other judges his views in writing, "the court cannot recognize any agreement made by counsel to change the rule of court, and in no case will any agreement of counsel be recognized in this court except upon a stipulation in writing." Again, says Mr. Justice BLAIR, "to grant this motion the court would have to stultify itself, and reverse its decision in Halleck v. Bresnahen, ante, 73, 3 Wyo. 73, 2 P. 537, 538, (rendered at the last term of this court,) wherein the court say, Mr. Justice PARKS delivering the opinion:
Counsel for appellants were very earnest in their arguments that a liberal rule should be applied to this matter, and that a reinstatement might be had, and they be allowed to print an abstract. This cause was disposed of in the district court on the fourteenth day of September, 1882. Notice of appeal was not filed until the thirteenth day of October, 1882, the last day it could have been filed, and the printed briefs were not presented until after this term began. To do what counsel wish would be to grant them a further postponement, in the face of the fact that they have not complied with the rule as to printed abstracts; that rule prescribing the time within which they are to be printed to be within seven months after filing the notice of appeal. To sanction a practice so loose as is urged in this cause cannot be done consistently with equity or justice.
The motion to reinstate is unanimously denied. The decree of the court of original jurisdiction must be enforced.
All the judges concurring.
NOTE.
The rules of practice of the supreme court are, by statute, made as binding upon the different courts and parties practicing therein as if they were legislative enactments. Halleck v. Bresnahen, (Wyo.) 3 Wyo. 73, 2 P. 537.
The rules of courts are made under special statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Guckenheimer
... ... the provisions of the law governing execution sales. It is ... further adjudged and decreed that T. K. Spencer, sheriff, ... is not a necessary party to the proceedings herein, and the ... same are dismissed as to him, with his proper costs.' ... From which ... v. Dubois, 10 Utah, 60, 37 ... P. 90; Long v. Long, 96 Mo. 180, 8 S.W. 766; ... Spain v. Thomas, 49 Ill.App. 249; Spencer v ... McMaster, 3 Wyo. 105, 3 P. 798). According to my ... construction, the language used is permissive, not ... imperative, and under the circumstances I do ... ...
-
Simpson v. Occidental Building & Loan Assn.
... ... 594, 200 S.W. 132; Manchester v ... Loomis, 197 Iowa 1049, 195 N.W. 958, 198 N.W. 102; ... Olson v. Lund, 101 N.W. 1128; Spencer v ... Kelso, 132 N.W. 13; Werth v. Frye, 258 Mo. 578, ... 167 S.W. [45 Wyo. 430] 972; Manuel v. St. Louis & S. F ... R. Co., 186 Mo. 479, 85 ... under a rule requiring printed abstracts, the Supreme Court ... dismissed cases for failure to obey it. See Spencer v ... McMaster, 3 Wyo. 105, 3 P. 798; Trabing v ... Meyer, 3 Wyo. 133, 5 P. 569 ... [19 P.2d 960] ... For ... noncompliance with its provisions, ... ...
-
Board of Com'rs. of Natrona County v. Casper Nat. Bank, 2132
...a new trial. Sec. 81-2101, R. S. 1931. The definition of an abstract is clearly stated in Halleck v. Bresnahen, 3 Wyo. 73, and Spencer v. McMaster, 3 Wyo. 105. following cases are cited in support of other grounds of defendants' motions, also attacking the insufficiency of the abstract: Bre......
-
Starley v. Wilde
... ... and 21. The question has been before the court in the ... following cases. Halleck v. Bresnahen, 3 Wyo. 73; Spencer v ... McMaster, 3 Wyo. 105; Stirrett v. Stirrett, 244 P. 1006; ... State ex rel Bishop v. Bramblette, 295 P. 800; Lawer Auto ... Supply Company ... ...