Baird v. Matteson
North Dakota Supreme Court
Statement. Judgment was entered in the district court in this action, and notice of the entry thereof served upon defendant’s counsel on the 21st day of July, 1911. Time for settling statement of the case was extended, over plaintiff’s objections, until October 31, 1911, when it was settled by the judge. An appeal to this court from such judgment was perfected on the 18th day of September, 1911. No motion was ever made in the trial court to open or modify the judgment.
Read the full summary
Statement. Judgment was entered in the district court in this action, and notice of the entry thereof served upon defendant’s counsel on the 21st day of July, 1911. Time for settling statement of the case was extended, over plaintiff’s objections, until October 31, 1911, when it was settled by the judge. An appeal to this court from such judgment was perfected on the 18th day of September, 1911. No motion was ever made in the trial court to open or modify the judgment. Nothing further was done in the way of printing and serving abstract or statement or briefs by appellants until the 7th day…
1Opinion of the Court
Spalding, Oh. J.
It is apparent that, standing alone, the motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted. Delay in doing anything toward prosecuting an appeal from September 18, 1911, to March, 1914, or at least from the writing of the letter to the clerk, November 7, 1911, until the submission of a motion to dismiss the appeal in March, 1914, is such delay as to require a dismissal of the appeal, in the absence of some extraordinary reasons excusing appellants for their delay.
We do not construe the letter of November 7th to the clerk as a *166request to transmit the record to the supreme court,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Pierce County Abstract Company v. PettersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
- Pierce County Abstract Company v. PettersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966