Case ID: nd_18/html/0483-01.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

Aultman-Taylor Machinery Co. v. Fred Clausen.
    Opinion filed May 12, 1909.
    Supreme Court — Statement of Case — Application to Extend Time.
    An application to the Supreme Court for an order enlarging the time within which plaintiff may prepare and serve a proposed statement of the case, and for stay of proceedings until such statement is settled, will be denied; the Supreme Court having no jurisdiction to entertain such an application.
    Action by the Aultman-Taylor Machinery Company against Fred Clausen. Application by plaintiff for an order enlarging the time in which to prepare and serve a statement of the case and for stay of proceedings.
    Denied.
    
      Weeks, Murphy & Mourn, (H. R. Turner and B. H. Wright, of counsel), for plaintiff. A. Woodward and Noble, Blood & Adam-son, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

Application to this court for an order enlarging the time within which plaintiff may prepare and serve a proposed statement of case, and for a stay of proceedings until such statement is settled.

(121 N. W. 64.)

The application is denied for the reason that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such'an application. The trial court has the undoubted power for good cause shown and in furtherance of justice to grant the relief here prayed for, even though the statutory period for settling such statement or moving for a new trial has expired. Rev. Codes 1905, section 7068. The record discloses that a similar application was made to the presiding judge, and that he refused such application upon the sole ground that the court was without jurisdiction or authority to grant such extension. This was, in view of the express language of the foregoing section, clearly erroneous. This court, no doubt, has jurisdiction, in a proper proceeding, to review and correct any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, but we are aware of no. authority justifying the practice adopted by plaintiff’s counsel on this application.

All concur, except Morgan, C. J., not participating.