Case Name: Hiram H. Ackley v. Charles W. Sager and others
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1874-10-07
Citations: 30 Mich. 264
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hiram H. Ackley v. Charles W. Sager and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Hiram H. Ackley v. Charles W. Sager and others.
Rule construed. The proviaion of circuit court rule S3, requiring a case made to be filed within ten days after it shall be settled and signed, has reference to the filing in the circuit court, and has no relation to the practice in the supreme court.
Case made : Dismissal: Delay. The time limited for bringing writs of error is so far analogous to that for bringing up a case made, that a case which has been returned, and filed in the supreme court will not be dismissed on the ground of delay merely, where the delay is less than two years.
Heard October 6.
Decided October 7.
Motion to dismiss case made after judgment.
This case was commenced before á justice and carried to the circuit by appeal, where judgment was rendered January 3, 1874.- On June 1, 1874, the circuit judge settled a case. The plaintiff’s attorney, having been served about the middle of June with a printed copy of the case, supposed the case had been returned and filed in the supreme court, and noticed it for hearing at the July term; but after having filed his note, of issue and prepared his brief, he ascertained that the case had not been filed. He then caused execution to issue upon the judgment out of the circuit court, on the supposition that defendants had abandoned the case; but after the execution was delivered to the sheriff, and on August 25, 1874, the defendants filed the case in the supreme court'without plaintiff’s assent.
Gould & Lyon, for plaintiff,
moved .to dismiss the case, claiming that according to circuit court rule 83 the case was not filed in' this court in season.
J. W. Turner, for defendants, contra.

Opinion:
The Court
held that the rule referred to regulated the filing in the circuit court, and has ho relation to the practice in the supreme court; that it was decided in Van Blarcom v. The Ætna Ins. Co., 6 Mich., 299, that the time limited for bringing writs of error was so far analogous that a failure to return the settled case into the supreme court within the like time, which is two years, ought to justify a dismissal; and that a dismissal ought not to be ordered on the ground of delay merely, where that is for a less period than that given by the statute for bringing writs of error.
Motion denied.