State ex rel. Johnson v. Dyer
| Decision Date | 09 January 1885 |
| Docket Number | 12,016 |
| Citation | 99 Ind. 426 |
| Parties | State, ex rel. Johnson, v. Dyer |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Application for mandamus.
C. A DeBruler, W. P. Edson and E. D. Owen, for appellant.
A. P Hovey and G. V. Menzies, for appellee.
The relator is the appellant in the case of Johnson v. Gorham, now pending in this court, and seeks by the present petition to obtain a mandate against the judge who tried the case, compelling him to sign a bill of exceptions.
It is alleged in the petition that the Honorable Azro Dyer, judge of the superior court of Vanderburgh county, was called to try the case by the judge of the Posey Circuit Court; that, upon overruling the motion for a new trial, the special judge of that court granted ninety days in which to prepare and file a bill of exceptions; that within the time limited the appellant prepared a correct bill and took it to the residence of Judge Dyer for the purpose of having it signed; that the judge was absent from the State, and had been for a long time in the State of California; that the bill was presented to the judge of the circuit court, who declined to sign it, and it was then filed with the clerk of that court. It also appears that on the 17th day of October, 1884, the bill was presented to Judge Dyer, who made the following endorsement:
We think that the writ must be refused for the reason that it is not shown that the appellant exercised proper diligence. It was his duty to have proceeded more diligently than he has done, for the delay, from the time Judge Dyer returned from California until the 17th day of October, was unreasonable. The document prepared by the appellant was not ready for signing until the last day of the time allowed by the court and conceding that this was in time, still the unexplained delay from the return of Judge Dyer, on the 28th of August until the 17th day of October, constitutes such laches as precludes the appellant from securing the relief he seeks. It may be true that a judge, who grants time in which to file a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lengelsen v. McGregor
...an opportunity to present it, and should not be deprived of the bill by the absence of the trial judge from the State. State, ex rel., v. Dyer, 99 Ind. 426; Fechheimer v. Trounstiene, 12 Colo. 282, P. 704; Stonesifer v. Kilburn, 94 Cal. 33, 29 P. 332. But what we decided in the original opi......
-
State ex rel. Beach v. Dist. Court
...appears, and there is no showing to explain or excuse its existence. High, Ext. Rem. § 30b; 2 Spelling on Inj. & Ext. Rem. § 1382; State v. Dyer, 99 Ind. 426;People v. Seneca Common Pleas, 2 Wend. 264;Mabley v. Superior Court, 41 Mich. 31, 1 N. W. 985;Chinn v. Trustees, 32 Ohio St. 236. (d)......
-
State ex rel. Dimond Brothers v. Craig
......Todd, 4 O., 351; Creager. v. Meeker, 22 Ohio St. 207.) The laches of the appellant. and of his attorney will defeat the writ. (State v. Dyer, 99 Ind. 426; Sutton v. Valdosta Co. (Ga.), 42 S.E. 94; Parkman v. Dent (Ga.), 34. S.E. 559; State v. Cox (Ind.), 58 N.E. 849;. Vason v. Gardner, ......
-
Lengelson v. McGregor
...be afforded an opportunity to present it, and should not be deprived of the bill by the absence of the trial judge from the state. State v. Dyer, 99 Ind. 426;Fechheimer v. Trounstiene, 12 Colo. 282, 20 Pac. 704;Stonesifer v. Kilburn, 94 Cal. 33, 29 Pac. 332. But what we decided in the origi......