Majority
Headnote
Courts <§=>190—Municipal Courts—Review of Proceedings—Rule of Supreme Court.The appeal in this case was taken on October 23, 1915, and the appellant ordered the minutes, which were duly filed by the stenographer. On November 12, 1915, the appellant served a notice of settlement of the case on appeal, returnable on November 27th, a period of 15 days from the date of service. Thereupon the respondent on November 15th served a notice of settlement returnable on November 19th. This notice the appellant returned upon the ground that there is “no provision or justification in the statutes or court rules for a notice of settlement of proposed case on appeal to be served by the respondent or his attorney.” The respondent now moves to dismiss the appeal.
Rule 3 of the Rules of Practice for the Hearing of Appeals from the Municipal Courts provides that the appellant or his attorney must, within 2 days after receipt of the notice that the stenographer’s minutes are on file, procure the case to be settled on a written notice “of at least 3 days.” The appellant claims that he has complied with this rule by giving a notice of 15 days. Literally this is true; but the object of the rule is clear, and that is to compel the return to be expeditiously and promptly filed in this court. While we have not intended to specify any precise day on which the notice must be returnable, and have provided ample notice to the respondent, it was not intended that the rule should be abused, and the settlement of the case unreasonably delayed, and especially when the notice, if observed, has the effect of putting the case over a term. Nor is there any good reason shown, certainly no statute or rule is violated, by allowing the respondent to serve a notice of settlement when he knows that the minutes are on file.