Case Name: RYTKONEN v. LOJACONO
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1934-06-04
Citations: 267 Mich. 361
Docket Number: Calendar No. 37,419
Parties: RYTKONEN v. LOJACONO.
Judges: Nelson Sharpe, C. J., and Potter, Fead, Wiest, Butzel, Btjshnell, and Edward M. Sharpe, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 267
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
RYTKONEN v. LOJACONO.
Mandamus — Appeal and Error — Settlement op Record.
Mandamus to compel eirbiiit judge to extend timé to settle rééórd on appeal ■ after expiration of year since granting leave to appeal as allowed by court rule is denied but upon-treating appeal as application to Supreme Court to grant further time, extension is granted (Court Rule No. 66 [193.3]).
Appeal from Marquette; Bell (Frank A.), J.
Submitted April 17, 1934.
(Calendar No. 37,419.)
Decided June 4, 1934.
Action by Lilliari Bytkonen, special • ádministratrix of the estate of P. Alfred Bytkonen, deceased, against Salvatore Lojacono. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant reviews order denying further extension of time to settle bill of exceptions by appeal in the nature of mandamus.
Mandamus denied. Further extension of time granted.
M. J. Kennedy, for plaintiff.
Douglas, Barbour, Desenberg & Purdy (George Quinnell, of counsel), for defendant.

Opinion:
North, J.
This is an appeal in the nature of mandamus in which appellant seeks an order requiring the circuit judge to grant him a further extension of time within which to settle the record on_ appeal. Since leave to appeal was granted herein, the year within which a circuit judge may extend the time to settle a record on appeal has expired. See Court Rule No. 66 (1933). Therefore mandamus will not be granted. Recital here of the circumstances resulting in a misunderstanding and disagreement between the respective counsel and finally giving rise to this appeal, would be of no service to the profession. We will treat the appeal as an application to this court to grant further time within which appellant may perfect his appeal.
We think the circumstances disclosed by the record justify an extension of time, and accordingly it will be ordered that appellant be granted 40 days from and after the filing of this opinion within which to present to the circuit court for settlement his proposed record on appeal. No costs will be awarded.
Nelson Sharpe, C. J., and Potter, Fead, Wiest, Butzel, Btjshnell, and Edward M. Sharpe, JJ., concurred.