Headly v. Miller
Headly v. Miller
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from an order overruling tbe motion of tbe defendants to set aside a judgment. Tbe grounds of tbe motion urged on this appeal were: (1) That tbe judgment was signed by tbe clerk; (2) that it was entered when there was no term of court; (3) that it was
At the June term, 1881, of the circuit court of the county of Green Lake, the evidence had all been taken and the case was submitted to the court to be decided upon the evidence and the written arguments of the respective counsel. The court heard such arguments and took the case under advisement. At the June term, of said court, 1883, the court announced its decision in the cause upon all the issues therein, in favor of the plaintiff; but not being sufficiently advised of the value of certain improvements put upon the premises by one of the defendants, and of the value of property and rents received by the defendants from the premises, the court referred the same to be ascertained by O. E. Silver, Esq., court commissioner. The commissioner made his report, and it was filed in the cause.
A motion was made on behalf of the plaintiff at the circuit court of Winnebago county, as at a special term of the said circuit court of Green Lake county, to be heard on the 2d day of September, 1884, for judgment on the findings of the court and on said report of the commissioner, of which motion the Hon. George D. Waring, attorney for the defendants, had notice, and he, intending to be absent from the state, on account of ill health, at the time fixed, requested his then law partner, but who was not interested as an attorney in the case, to appear for him at the hearing of said motion for the purpose of continuing the cause for the term. The learned circuit judge announced on that day that he intended to resign his pffice and leave the bench the 1st day of October thereafter, and that if he was to render judgment in the case the parties must appear before him at some time before that time, and be heard. By the affidavit of L. Eichstaedt, Esq., said law partner of Mr. Waring, it appears that such was the understanding between himself and counsel of the plaintiff and the judge,
It would seem that it was as much the right and duty of the attorney of the defendant to have had some certain time fixed for the final hearing, and to give notice thereof if he desired any further hearing before the judge, as that of the attorney of the plaintiff. It is sufficient that it was agreed that the said judge should finally dispose of the case before the 1st day of October, when he would be out of office, and it was desirable, and perhaps necessary, that he should do so, inasmuch as he had heard the whole case and had already announced his decision on the main issues. Tins was a case in equity, and the judge made a special reference of some questions of fact to aid him in rendering the final judgment. The case had been fully heard and submitted on the main issues, and it is at least doubtful whether either party had any right to be further heard. It would seem to have been discretionary with the judge to have ordered or permitted it. It does not appear that the defendants have been at all injured by their failure to appear and have their cause more fully presented to the court, or that there is any merit in this motion. We do not think that there was any substantial irregularity in the manner in which the plaintiff’s counsel moved for judgment, on the 30th day of September, 1884, without further notice, under the circumstances of the case.
By sec. 2894, R. S., “ judgment upon trial of an issue of fact by the court, or referees, or upon a failure to answer (except where the clerk is authorized to enter the same by this chapter), must be entered by the clerk upon the' direction of the court.” By see. 2429, R. S., “ the judge of the circuit court may, at any general or special term in his circuit, hear any motion ” for judgment, in certain cases mentioned therein. This statute also gives the court jurisdiction, and if that jurisdiction is improperly exercised it is at most a mere irregularity. The notice of the motion to set aside this judgment is entitled, “In the circuit court of Green
We tbink tbe circuit court properly overruled tbe motion.
By the Court.— Tbe order of tbe circuit court is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Headly v. Miller and another
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published