Case ID: minn_109/html/0530-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE ex rel. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MEEKER COUNTY v. G. E. QVALE.
    
    January 14, 1910.
    Nos. 16,502—(238).
    •Appeal- and Error.
    ' After the time -for settling a “ease” has expired, and no extension of time has been granted, a party to the action is not entitled, as a matter of right, to have a settled case resettled. The denial of a motion for resettlement under such circumstances is not an abuse of judicial discretion. [Reporter] '
    Upon the relation of the board of county commissioners for Meeker county this court issued its order directing respondent, as judge of the district court for Meeker county, to show cause why a writ ofmandamus should not issue requiring him to resettle and allow a “case” in the 'matter referred to in relator’s application. Respondent set up in his return that on August 24, 1909, relator served -a proposed case in a matter then before the district court for Meeker county; that the case was settled on September-29, -T-909; that no extension of time in which to propose a case was ever granted; that on October 26, 1909, relator made and -served- a motion to. resettle the settled case and on November 6, 1909, the motion was denied; that the time within which the relator could propose a ease had elapsed prior to said October 26 and before relator made its motion to resettle its ease.
    Order discharged.
    
      L. K. Sexton and Alva R. Sunt, for relator.
    
      A. F. Foster and S. S. McMonagle, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 124 N. W. 22.
    
   PER CURIAM.

This is an application, heard upon an order to show cause, for a peremptory .writ of mandamus directing the respondent, as judge of the district court of the county of Meeker, to resettle and allow the ease mentioned in the moving papers herein and to certify the documents and papers considered by him on the hearing in the district court. Upon a consideration of the moving papers, respondent’s return, and relator’s reply, we are .of the opinion that the relator was not as a matter of right entitled to have its motion to resettle and certify the case granted by the respondent, and that, the denial of the motion was not an abuse of judicial discretion. State v. Quinn, 107 Minn. 503, 120 N. W. 1088.

Order to show cause discharged.