History
  • No items yet
midpage
Whitmore v. Harris
10 Utah 259
Utah
1894
Check Treatment
Merritt, C. J. :

This is an appeal from an order or judgment of the Third District Court refusing and denying a petition for a writ of mandate. The facts are fully stated in an opinion of this court, just handed down, on an appeal from an order dismissing and denying a motion for a new trial, in the case of Elliot v. Whitmore, 37 Pac. 463, and the questions determined in that case are decisive of- this.

The time for serving -amendments to the proposed statement on motion for a. new trial having expired, and no amendments proposed, it was the duty of the referee to sign the statement; and, having refused to do this, the writ asked for should have been granted. Lewis A. Scott Elliot, the plaintiff in the action to which this application for the writ of mandate relates, having appeared by counsel and resisted the application for the writ, costs should be awarded against him, instead of the referee. 2 Spell. Extr. Rel. § 1708; People v. Bacon, 18 Mich. 247. The judgment or order appealed from should be reversed, with costs against Lewis A. Scott Elliot, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant the writ as prayed.

MINER and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Whitmore v. Harris
Court Name: Utah Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 19, 1894
Citation: 10 Utah 259
Docket Number: No. 411
Court Abbreviation: Utah
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.