Glaspell v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company

STATEMENT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.

This was an action brought by Glaspell against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, February 24, 1885, in the district court for Stutsman county, in the sixth judicial district of the territory of Dakota, to recover damages for deceit in the sale by defendant to plaintiff of 2,240 acres of land. Upon the trial of the case in that court a verdict was returned, November 24, 1888, in favor of plaintiff for $12,545.43, and judgment was rendered thereon, November 26, 1888, for said amount, with costs, taxed at $64.15. 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, 1889, which time was subsequently extended by order of court, for reason given, to February 28th, and thence again 'for cause' to March 28, 1889, upon which day the following order 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 13, 1889.' The time was again extended to May 31, 1889, and on the 23d day of 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 December 14, 1889, there was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court for Stutsman county, N. D., a notice of intention to move for a new trial and a notice of a motion for new trial. The notice of intention stated that the motion would be made upon the bill of exceptions, etc., and the notice of motion was as follows: 'Take notice that the motion for a new trial herein will be brought on for argument 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.'