Glaspell v. Northern Pacific Railroad

Citations

• 144 U.S. 211
• 12 S. Ct. 593
• 36 L. Ed. 409
• 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2073

Syllabus

<p>Upon the trial of this case in the District Court in Dakota, a verdict wae returned, November 24, 1888, in favor of plaintiff for $12,545.43, and judgment was rendered accordingly November 26,1888. On November . 28, 1888, the court made an order by consent extending the time for serving notice of intention to move for a new trial, for motion for new trial, and for settlement of a bill of exceptions until January 28, 1889V which time was subsequently extended by order of court for reason given, to February 28, and thence again “ for cause” to March 28, 1889, upon which day the following ordef was entered: “ The defendant having served upon plaintiff a proposed bill of exceptions herein, the time for settlement of same is hereby extended from March 28, 1889, to April 10, 1889, and the time within which to serve notice of the intention to move for new trial, and within which to move for new trial, is hereby extended to April 13th, 1889.” The time was again extended to May 31, 1889, and on the 23d day cf that month the following order was entered: “ The date for settling the bill of exceptions proposed by the defendant herein is hereby extended to June 29, 1889. Defendant may have until ten days after the settling of said bill within which to serve notice of intention to move for a new trial, and within which to move for a new trial in said action.” This was the last order of extension. On Decem- ' her 14, 1889, there was filed in the office of the clerk of the District ■ Court a notice of motion for new trial, which'was as follows: “ Take notice that the motion for a new trial herein will be brought on for argurnent- before the court at chambers, at Jamestown, Dakota, on September 12, 1889, at 10 o’clock a.m., or ,as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.” On the margin of this notice appeared this indorsement: “ Hearing continued until the 21st September, 1889. Roderick Rose, Judge.” The notices and motion seem to have been served September 3, 1889. The bill of e