Court Opinion

ID: 5169213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 04:51:58.086834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:00.284641
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
SULLIVAN, J.
A petition for rehearing has been filed in this case, and counsel seems to place reliance on a stipulation in writing signed by opposing counsel granting an extension of the time in which to prepare and serve a proposed statement or bill of exceptions. Counsel contends that the attorneys for respondent had power to bind their clients in that stipulation. The trouble with this contention is that the stipulation signed by counsel cuts no figure in the case whatever. That was a stipulation granting the appellant ten days in which to prepare and serve a proposed statement or bill of exceptions. Counsel for appellant had, under the statute, ten days for that purpose, which time expired on the twenty-ninth day of December, 1904. Counsel thereafter procured an order of the court extending that time for sixty days from the twenty-third day of December, 1904. Counsel for appellant attempts to explain the order of the court and contends that it was intended to date from December 29th, instead of the 23d, 1904. The order speaks for itself and extends the time for sixty days from the 23d. The stipulation signed by respective counsel has no part whatever in the decision of this case. If counsel for appellant has made a mistake, that may be unfortunate, but under the facts of this case we cannot give him relief, and the petition for rehearing is denied.
Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.