Case ID: minn_102/html/0509-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE ex rel. CARL P. MATSON v. GORHAM POWERS.
    
    October 11, 1907.
    Nos. 15,370—(16).
    
    Order of the supreme court to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue.
    Discharged.
    
      John J. Schoregge, for relator.
    
      Daly é Barnard, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 113 N. W. 1135.
    
    
      
       October, 1907, term.
    
   PER CURIAM.

This matter was heard upon, an order, issued on the petition of the relator,, requiring the respondent to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue' requiring him, as judge of the district court of the Twelfth judicial district, to settle and sign a case and exceptions in this action. It is-admitted that the time limited by the statute for the settlement of a case and exceptions had expired before the relator made a motion béfore the respondent, as such judge, to be relieved of the default and to have the proposed case-settled and signed. The motion was denied, but afterward renewed and again denied.

The granting or refusing of such a motion is within the discretion of the trial court, and nothing but a clear abuse of such discretion will justify the interference of this court. State v. Powers, 69 Minn. 429, 72 N. W. 705. Having-heard counsel for the respective parties and examined the record herein, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge did not abuse his discretion in-denying the motion. Therefore it is ordered that the order to show cause be,, and it is, hereby discharged.