125 Mich. 628 | Mich. | 1901
Relator obtained judgment against the city of Flint on May 5, 1900. On the same day the attorney for the defendant moved the court for an order giving
It appears that neither the court nor the attorneys had in mind Rule No. 47. Had the attention of the court been called to it, and counsel for relator had objected because such extension would be in violation of the rule, undoubtedly such order would not have been made. The motion was an oral one, made when both attorneys were in court; and no objection was made to the hearing on the ground that no notice had been given, or that there was no showing under the rule for an extension beyond 60 days. We think the court correctly held that the relator had waived the notice and the showing required by the rule.
The writ will be denied.