Case Name: LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. BRANCH CIRCUIT JUDGE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1898-03-22
Citations: 116 Mich. 399
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. BRANCH CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. BRANCH CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Mandamus — Bill of Exceptions — Settlement.
Mandarrms will not issue to compel the circuit judge to settle a bill of exceptions after the expiration of the time provided for by Circuit Court Rule No. 47, in the absence of a stipulation extending the time.
Mandamus by the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company to compel George L. Yaple, circuit judge of Branch county, to settle a bill of exceptions.
Submitted March 1, 1898.
Writ denied March 22, 1898.
On March 19, 1897, verdict and judgment were entered against the relator. On March 20th an ex parte order was made granting relator until July 1st to settle a bill of exceptions. On June 26th relator entered a motion for a new trial, which was denied September 7th. On July 1st, September 9th, and October 4th ex parte orders were made extending the time to settle the bill, the last order ■extending it to November 1st. On September 9th a copy of the proposed bill was served upon the plaintiff’s attorneys. On October 6th proposed amendments were served. During October and November several letters passed between the respective parties in Tegard to the matter. On October 25th the attorneys for plaintiff wrote the attorney for the relator, stating that they had heard nothing from the proposed amendments, and they were anxious to get the .case settled and heard at the next term of court, and said, “We shall feel like opposing any extension of time whereby the settlement is to be delayed.” On November 23d one of the attorneys for plaintiff wrote relator’s attorney, refusing to take any further steps towards settling fhe bill of exceptions. On December 2d notice was given to settle the bill before the respondent on December 6th. December 13th relator made a special motion to extend the time to settle the bill. This was heard December 20th and denied January 31st. The relator now asks for the writ of mandamus to compel respondent to settle the bill.
C. JB. Weaver, for relator.
Lockerby & Lockerby and Campbell & Johnson, for respondent.

Opinion:
Grant, C. J.
(after stating the facts). Cir. Ct. Rule 47 gives a party absolutely 20 days in which to settle a bill of exceptions, and the right to further time, not exceeding 60 days; but no further time shall be granted except for good cause shown by affidavit on special motion after notice, or on the written stipulation of the parties. There was no written stipulation, and the circuit judge, who had all the facts before him, refused to settle the bill. The correspondence did not amount to a stipulation extending the time, and there was no order made by the court extending the time after November 1st. We cannot set aside the ruling of the circuit judge without virtually abrogating Rule 47.
The writ is denied.
The other Justices concurred.