Case Name: Joseph VanBlarcom v. The Ætna Insurance Company
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1859-05-11
Citations: 6 Mich. 299
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph VanBlarcom v. The Ætna Insurance Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
Joseph VanBlarcom v. The Ætna Insurance Company.
Where, after judgment in the circuit court, a party caused a case to be made and settled for review in this Court, but neglected for more than two years to cause the same to be certified to this Court by the clerk, — Held, That, by analogy to the statute limiting the time for bringing writs of error to two years, the case must be deemed to have been abandoned, and will be dismissed — at least unless the delay is sufficiently accounted for.
Heard May 10th.
Decided May 11th.
Case made from Branch Circuit.
T. M. Cooley, for plaintiff,
moved to dismiss this case. From the record, it appeared that the cause was tried in the court below in January, 1857, and judgment rendered for plaintiff; a-case made, settled, and filed with the clerk of the circuit court in February, 1857, but not certified to and filed in this Court until March, 1859.
A. Pond, contra,
read an affidavit of the attorney for defendant in the court below, showing a request on his part to the clerk to cause the case to be certified to this Court immediately after its being filed; that the clerk promised to do so; that the attorney, about that time, was taken seriously ill, and so continued for a long while thereafter, in consequence of which he was compelled to give up entirely the business of his profession; that six or eight months thereafter, plaintiff’s attorney called Ms attention to the fact that the case-was not yet transmitted to this Court, but the de.ponent was still, at that time, unable to take charge of his professional business.

Opinion:
The Chibe Justice:
The case must be dismissed. By analogy to the statute-limiting* the' time for bringing writs of error to two years, the party who, for that length of time, neglects to cause the case he has procured to be settled, to be returned to thisr Court, must be deemed to have abandoned it. If we look into tbe reasons given here for the delay, we can not regard them as sufficiently excusing it after the first six or eight-months.
But as either party might have moved in the cause after-the case had been settled and filed, we will not give costa, on this motion.