7 Utah 414 | Utah | 1891
The appeal in this case is from the order overruling motion for a new trial, and the error assigned is that it was heard out of time. The first contention is. .that no motion for a new trial had been made, only a notice of intention had been given and filed, and hence such motion could not be heard. This court decided at this term in the case of Needham v. Salt LaTce Oity, ante, 26 Pac. Rep. 920, that a formal motion need
On the 6th of the previous August, by stipulation, the appellants were allowed thirty days from that date in which to give notice of motion for a new trial, to file and serve same, and to prepare and serve and file statement on motion for a new trial, and to take whatever steps are necessary to prepare, serve, and file said motion and statement. By this stipulation, the requirements of the statute are waived, and consequently the decision of the case depends upon the meaning to be given to the stipulation. But for the stipulation the appellants were compelled to serve and file their statement on motion for a new trial within twenty days after notice of the decision of the court, the case having been tried by the court without a jury. The notice of the decision was given to appellants on the 6th of August, 1890, so that without the stipulation the appellant's’ opportunity to serve and file notice of motion for a new trial would have expired on the 11th of August, and to serve and file statement on motion for a new trial on the 21st of