Case Name: James P. Scott and Others vs. Moses W. Scott and Another
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1858-05-19
Citations: 5 Mich. 106
Docket Number: 
Parties: James P. Scott and Others vs. Moses W. Scott and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 106–107

Head Matter:
James P. Scott and Others vs. Moses W. Scott and Another.
A case in error, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution, re-instated on terms, on affidavit of merits, and of a verbal agreement with counsel for defendant in error, giving time; and this, though the verbal agreement was denied.*
Heard and Decided May 19th.
Error to Kent Circuit.
On an early day of the present term the case was dismissed, on ex parte motion, for want of prosecution — no assignment of errors having been filed. Return to the writ of error was made in 1855.
<t. V. JST. lothrop
now moved to re-instate the case. He read an affidavit, showing that the writ of error was brought in good faith, and in the belief that the judgment below would be reversed; that assignment of errors had not been filed, for the reason that negotiations for a settlement had been going on between the parties, and that the attorney for plaintiffs in error had had a verbal understanding with the attorney for defendants in error, that assignment of errors need not be filed until the latter had notified the former to file it, and that no such notification had been given.
G. I. Wailcer opposed the motion,
on an affidavit of the attorney for defendants in error, in substance denying the understanding claimed, and stating that, before the last term, he had notified the attorney for plaintiff in error to proceed in the cause. And Mr. Walker relied upon Rule 6 of the Court, requiring agreements- between parties, or their attorneys, to be in writing.
Mr. Zothrop,
in reply claimed that where, as in this case, there had been a misunderstanding between parties, it was an ordinary exercise of the power of the Court to relieve a party who had acted in good faith, against the consequences.
See Wager vs. Stickle, 3 Paige, 40V.

Opinion:
The Court granted the motion, on payment of ten dollars costs, and the filing and service of assignment of errors within three days; and ordered the cause to be placed upon the docket, for hearing at the present term.