Stirrett v. Stirrett
| Decision Date | 20 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 1323 |
| Parties | STIRRETT v. STIRRETT [*] |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
ERROR to District Court, Natrona County; BRYAN S. CROMER, Judge.
Action for divorce by A. E. Stirrett against Edith M. Stirrett. Plaintiff brings error with respect to the portion of the judgment relating to the custody of minor children. No briefs were filed.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
Hagens & Murane, for plaintiff in error.
John Dillon and W. L. Walls, for defendant in error.
This cause is before the court at this time on a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff in error failed to file his brief within the time required by the rules of this court. The facts are, as shown by the record, that the petition in error was filed in this court on June 23, 1925 complaining of an order or judgment of the district court sitting in and for the county of Natrona, made and entered on June 18, 1925, upon an application of the plaintiff in error as plaintiff below in an action for divorce, for the modification of the judgment and decree therein, insofar as it relates to the custody of the minor children of the parties. At the time of filing the petition in error, a petition was also filed by plaintiff in error for supersedeas, and upon a hearing of the latter petition, a supersedeas was granted by the Chief Justice of this court upon certain conditions stated; and a supersedeas bond as required by the order was given and filed herein. Thereafter an extension of time was granted by this court or one of the justices to the plaintiff in error for filing briefs, to and including September 21, 1925, in order to permit a bill of exceptions to be duly presented and allowed in the trial court, including the transcript of the evidence taken upon the proceedings by the district court reporter. It appears by affidavit of counsel for plaintiff in error that the briefs were filed on October 10, 1925; said counsel being under the impression that a further extension of time, until that day had been granted in this court, upon an application therefor, which had been duly prepared and left in the office of counsel for transmission here, showing that the district court had granted until that date for filing the reporter's transcript in said court, but that, during counsel's absence following the preparation of said application and instructions to transmit, through inadvertence of a clerk the application was not so forwarded. And counsel states in his affidavit that the delay was due entirely to inadvertence and mistake.
It is not perceived that an order sustaining the motion to dismiss could in any way facilitate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Bunce
...v. Morton, 22 Wyo. 478; Nicholson v. State, 23 Wyo. 482; McGinnis v. Beatty, 27 Wyo. 287; Fried v. Guiberson, 28 Wyo. 208; Stirrett v. Stirrett, 35 Wyo. 1. It also been held by this court that an order of dismissal does not operate to affirm the judgment, and plaintiffs may file new proceed......
-
Starley v. Wilde
...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 Supply Company v. Teton Auto Company, 5 P.2d 306. In Halleck v. Bresnahen, no ......
-
In re National Building & Loan Ass'n. of America
...The only excuse shown for failure to file briefs was a mistake made by non-resident counsel as to the time for filing briefs. In Stirrett v. Stirrett, the failure to briefs in time was due to the inadvertence of a clerk in the office of counsel for the appellant, and a motion to dismiss was......
-
Spence v. Nicks Motor Co.
...the expiration of the sixty days in extreme cases, or for other valid reasons. Brown v. Brown, 29 Wyo. 60, 210 P. 390; Stirrett v. Stirrett, 35 Wyo. 1, 244 P. 1006. We do not think that such case is before us. The motion to dismiss the appeal will be granted, and the motion for an extension......