Costilla Land & Development Co. v. Allen

Citations

• 17 N.M. 343
• 128 P. 79

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS (BY THE COURT).</p> <p>1. See. 2, chap. 120, S. L. 1909 only authorizes an extension oí time within which to file a complete transcript, and under this section no authority exists for extending the time for “settling and signing the bills of exceptions.”</p> <p>2. Sec. 4, chap. 120, S. L. 1909, authorizes the trial judge, or in his absence from the state, any other district judge, to grant an extension of time, to settle and sign the bills of exceptions, but application for such extension of time must be made at least ten days prior to the return day.</p> <p>3. Upon motion of appellees, accompanied by a skeleton transcript of the record, as required by sec. 21, chap. 57, S. L. 1907, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. Thereafter appellants filed a motion to set aside the order of affirmance, based upon an extension of time granted him by the district judge, within which to “complete the bill of exceptions and transcript of record.” Prior to the decision upon the question appellants permitted the additional time granted them to expire, and failing to file, or tender for filing, the complete transcript, appellees filed a new skelton transcript and moved again for an affirmance. Held: that as appellants have permitted the time to elapse, under the extension granted, that it would avail them nothing, should the court set aside the order of affirmance, as the court would be required to immediately reaffirm the case. Therefore the motion is denied, without determining the effect of the order signed by the district judge.</p> <p>4. Courts will not make a useless order or grant a party unavailing relief.</p>