Case ID: mich_162/html/0703-01.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

BALDWIN v. ESCANABA LIQUOR DEALERS’ ASSOCIATION.
    1. Appeal and Error — Time to Appeal — Equity Practice — Claim oe Appeal.
    The failure of appellants to file a claim of appeal after the settlement of the record" in chancery is not fatal where the claim was actually filed prior to the settlement of the case.
    2. Same — Reguster’s Fee — Payment.
    Actual payment of the fee to the register in chancery is unnecessary if the register treats it as paid within the 40 days after settling the testimony by giving the solicitors credit for the amount, makes no demand, and it is subsequently paid. Act No. 299, Pub. Acts 1909.
    Bill by Francis L. Baldwin-against the Escanaba Liquor Dealers’ Association for an injunction. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals: Qn motion to dismiss the appeal.
    Submitted June 28, 1910.
    (Calendar No. 24,102.)
    Motion denied September 27, 1910.
    
      A. H. Byall, for the motion.
    
      CummisTcey & Spencer, contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

A motion is made to dismiss the appeal upon two grounds:

(1) The failure of the appellants to file a claim of appeal with the register in chancery of the circuit court for the county of Delta within 40 days after the settlement of the case.

(2) The failure of the appellants to pay to the register of the court the sum of $5 within 40 days after the settlement and filing of the case in the lower court.

The record shows the entry of the decree December 23, 1909, the filing of the bond on appeal January 29, 1910, the filing of the claim of appeal February 10,1910, the filing of the case settled April 19, 1910, and the payment of the -fee June 13, 1910. Section 2 of Act No. 299 of the Public Acts of 1909 provides for filing claim of appeal and payment of $5 to the register within 40 days after the settlement of the case on appeal. The first ground for dismissal was passed upon adversely to the contention of the mover in Patterson v. Hynes, 148 Mich. 581 (112 N. W. 129).

Touching the second ground urged, we find from the affidavit of the register that, while the #5 fee was not in fact paid within the time limited by statute, the register considered it as paid, gave solicitors for defendants personal credit for the same, and made no demand therefor. The money was actually paid on June 18, 1910. These facts constitute a sufficient compliance with the statute.

The motion is denied.