specifications error in Wyoming

1938Section 89-4910, supra, also directs that if the Judge of the District Court “shall neglect or refuse to grant the appellant a new trial within the period of twenty days from the date on which the specifications of error, are filed with the clerk of the district court, said clerk shall thereupon transmit to the clerk of the supreme court the record on appeal and the specifications of error.” In Samuelson v. Tribune Publishing Company, 41 Wyo. 487 , 287 Pac. 83 , we held that the word “thereupon,” as used in the language last' quoted, meant' “forthwith.” Subsequently, with the idea of clarifyin

1938Section 89-4910, supra, also directs that if the Judge of the District Court “shall neglect or refuse to grant the appellant a new trial within the period of twenty days from the date on which the specifications of error, are filed with the clerk of the district court, said clerk shall thereupon transmit to the clerk of the supreme court the record on appeal and the specifications of error.” In Samuelson v. Tribune Publishing Company, 41 Wyo. 487 , 287 Pac. 83 , we held that the word “thereupon,” as used in the language last' quoted, meant' “forthwith.” Subsequently, with the idea of clarifyin

1956We might say parenthetically that in Hahn v. Citizens’ State Bank, 25 Wyo. 467 , 171 P. 889, 894 , it is stated: “In view of the purpose of the specifications of error, and the other provisions of the statute, the provision of section 8 (§ 3-5408 W.C.S. 1945) that the specifications shall be filed and served within ten days after the record is prepared and filed should, in our opinion, be construed as prescribing only the limit of time beyond which such specifications may not be filed or served.” In Hanson v. Chicago, B. & Q.

1956We might say parenthetically that in Hahn v. Citizens’ State Bank, 25 Wyo. 467 , 171 P. 889, 894 , it is stated: “In view of the purpose of the specifications of error, and the other provisions of the statute, the provision of section 8 (§ 3-5408 W.C.S. 1945) that the specifications shall be filed and served within ten days after the record is prepared and filed should, in our opinion, be construed as prescribing only the limit of time beyond which such specifications may not be filed or served.” In Hanson v. Chicago, B. & Q.

1956That is explained by the late Chief Justice Potter in McGinnis v. Beatty, 27 Wyo. 287 , 196 P. 311, 313 , as follows: “Although the record was, when first prepared and filed, required to include the specifications of error, under the statute as originally enacted (L. 1917, c. 32, § 6), service of the specifications was not required (Id., § 8) until within ten days after the record has been filed.

1956That is explained by the late Chief Justice Potter in McGinnis v. Beatty, 27 Wyo. 287 , 196 P. 311, 313 , as follows: “Although the record was, when first prepared and filed, required to include the specifications of error, under the statute as originally enacted (L. 1917, c. 32, § 6), service of the specifications was not required (Id., § 8) until within ten days after the record has been filed.

1956Co., 29 Wyo. 421 , 213 P. 763 , the court stated that the filing and service of the specifications of error are not jurisdictional.

1956Co., 29 Wyo. 421 , 213 P. 763 , the court stated that the filing and service of the specifications of error are not jurisdictional.

1956Section 3-5410 W.C.S. 1945 provides that if the district court does not grant “a new trial within the period of twenty (20) days from the date on which the specifications of error are filed with the clerk of the district court, said clerk shall thereupon transmit to the clerk of the supreme court the record on appeal and the specifications of error.” We said in Porter v. Carstensen, 44 Wyo. 49 , 8 P.2d 446, 447 , in which the record on appeal was filed within sixty-six days after it was filed in the district court, as follows: “If we should excuse the delay in this case, we should thereby prac

1956Section 3-5410 W.C.S. 1945 provides that if the district court does not grant “a new trial within the period of twenty (20) days from the date on which the specifications of error are filed with the clerk of the district court, said clerk shall thereupon transmit to the clerk of the supreme court the record on appeal and the specifications of error.” We said in Porter v. Carstensen, 44 Wyo. 49 , 8 P.2d 446, 447 , in which the record on appeal was filed within sixty-six days after it was filed in the district court, as follows: “If we should excuse the delay in this case, we should thereby prac

1956Section 3-5410 W.C.S. 1945 provides that if the district court does not grant “a new trial within the period of twenty (20) days from the date on which the specifications of error are filed with the clerk of the district court, said clerk shall thereupon transmit to the clerk of the supreme court the record on appeal and the specifications of error.” We said in Porter v. Carstensen, 44 Wyo. 49 , 8 P.2d 446, 447 , in which the record on appeal was filed within sixty-six days after it was filed in the district court, as follows: “If we should excuse the delay in this case, we should thereby prac

1956Section 3-5410 W.C.S. 1945 provides that if the district court does not grant “a new trial within the period of twenty (20) days from the date on which the specifications of error are filed with the clerk of the district court, said clerk shall thereupon transmit to the clerk of the supreme court the record on appeal and the specifications of error.” We said in Porter v. Carstensen, 44 Wyo. 49 , 8 P.2d 446, 447 , in which the record on appeal was filed within sixty-six days after it was filed in the district court, as follows: “If we should excuse the delay in this case, we should thereby prac

1938See Leach v. Frederick, 36 Wyo. 121 , 253 Pac. 669 ; Posvar v. Pearce, 37 Wyo. 509 , 263 Pac. 711 ; Stein v. Schuneman, 39 Wyo. 476 , 273 Pac. 543, 544 ; Peterson v. LeFaivre, 44 Wyo. 378 , 12 Pac. (2d) 385 .

1938See Leach v. Frederick, 36 Wyo. 121 , 253 Pac. 669 ; Posvar v. Pearce, 37 Wyo. 509 , 263 Pac. 711 ; Stein v. Schuneman, 39 Wyo. 476 , 273 Pac. 543, 544 ; Peterson v. LeFaivre, 44 Wyo. 378 , 12 Pac. (2d) 385 .

1938See Leach v. Frederick, 36 Wyo. 121 , 253 Pac. 669 ; Posvar v. Pearce, 37 Wyo. 509 , 263 Pac. 711 ; Stein v. Schuneman, 39 Wyo. 476 , 273 Pac. 543, 544 ; Peterson v. LeFaivre, 44 Wyo. 378 , 12 Pac. (2d) 385 .

1938See Leach v. Frederick, 36 Wyo. 121 , 253 Pac. 669 ; Posvar v. Pearce, 37 Wyo. 509 , 263 Pac. 711 ; Stein v. Schuneman, 39 Wyo. 476 , 273 Pac. 543, 544 ; Peterson v. LeFaivre, 44 Wyo. 378 , 12 Pac. (2d) 385 .

1938See Leach v. Frederick, 36 Wyo. 121 , 253 Pac. 669 ; Posvar v. Pearce, 37 Wyo. 509 , 263 Pac. 711 ; Stein v. Schuneman, 39 Wyo. 476 , 273 Pac. 543, 544 ; Peterson v. LeFaivre, 44 Wyo. 378 , 12 Pac. (2d) 385 .

1938See Leach v. Frederick, 36 Wyo. 121 , 253 Pac. 669 ; Posvar v. Pearce, 37 Wyo. 509 , 263 Pac. 711 ; Stein v. Schuneman, 39 Wyo. 476 , 273 Pac. 543, 544 ; Peterson v. LeFaivre, 44 Wyo. 378 , 12 Pac. (2d) 385 .

1933Ordinarily, as already pointed out in Wyute Cattle Co. v. Connell, 43 Wyo. 135 , 299 Pac. 279 , 3 Pac. 101 , the final certificate of the clerk of the District Court to a record on appeal should be at the close of the entire record.

1933Ordinarily, as already pointed out in Wyute Cattle Co. v. Connell, 43 Wyo. 135 , 299 Pac. 279 , 3 Pac. 101 , the final certificate of the clerk of the District Court to a record on appeal should be at the close of the entire record.

1933Ordinarily, as already pointed out in Wyute Cattle Co. v. Connell, 43 Wyo. 135 , 299 Pac. 279 , 3 Pac. 101 , the final certificate of the clerk of the District Court to a record on appeal should be at the close of the entire record.

1932The situation here is just about the same as in Greenawalt v. *476 Improvement Co., 16 Wyo. 226 , 92 Pac. 1008 , where the prayer for relief was joint, and in which it was alleged: “The said plaintiffs in error claim that there is manifest error in the record and proceedings of said court filed herein and made part hereof” (followed by the specifications of error).

1932The situation here is just about the same as in Greenawalt v. *476 Improvement Co., 16 Wyo. 226 , 92 Pac. 1008 , where the prayer for relief was joint, and in which it was alleged: “The said plaintiffs in error claim that there is manifest error in the record and proceedings of said court filed herein and made part hereof” (followed by the specifications of error).

1932Counsel for plaintiffs in error have cited us to Clinton v. Elder, 40 Wyo. 350 , 277 Pac. 968 , 280 Pac. 889 , upon rehearing, and the case of Johnson v. Samuels, 186 Ind. 56 , 114 N. E. 977, 979 .

1932Counsel for plaintiffs in error have cited us to Clinton v. Elder, 40 Wyo. 350 , 277 Pac. 968 , 280 Pac. 889 , upon rehearing, and the case of Johnson v. Samuels, 186 Ind. 56 , 114 N. E. 977, 979 .

1932Counsel for plaintiffs in error have cited us to Clinton v. Elder, 40 Wyo. 350 , 277 Pac. 968 , 280 Pac. 889 , upon rehearing, and the case of Johnson v. Samuels, 186 Ind. 56 , 114 N. E. 977, 979 .

1932Counsel for plaintiffs in error have cited us to Clinton v. Elder, 40 Wyo. 350 , 277 Pac. 968 , 280 Pac. 889 , upon rehearing, and the case of Johnson v. Samuels, 186 Ind. 56 , 114 N. E. 977, 979 .

1927Mitter v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 27 Wyo. 72, 76 , 191 Pac. 1069 , 193 Pac. 520 ; Thomas v. Bivin, 32 Wyo. 478, 482 , 235 Pac. 321 . *146 When, as in this case, tbe record on appeal contains a transcript of tbe evidence, as provided in section 6405, and the specifications of error allege that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, the questions so raised by the record are presented to the trial judge when he reviews the record on appeal, and he may, as held in Allen v. Lewis, 26 Wyo. 85, 111 , grant a new trial on such grounds.

1927Mitter v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 27 Wyo. 72, 76 , 191 Pac. 1069 , 193 Pac. 520 ; Thomas v. Bivin, 32 Wyo. 478, 482 , 235 Pac. 321 . *146 When, as in this case, tbe record on appeal contains a transcript of tbe evidence, as provided in section 6405, and the specifications of error allege that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, the questions so raised by the record are presented to the trial judge when he reviews the record on appeal, and he may, as held in Allen v. Lewis, 26 Wyo. 85, 111 , grant a new trial on such grounds.

1927Mitter v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 27 Wyo. 72, 76 , 191 Pac. 1069 , 193 Pac. 520 ; Thomas v. Bivin, 32 Wyo. 478, 482 , 235 Pac. 321 . *146 When, as in this case, tbe record on appeal contains a transcript of tbe evidence, as provided in section 6405, and the specifications of error allege that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, the questions so raised by the record are presented to the trial judge when he reviews the record on appeal, and he may, as held in Allen v. Lewis, 26 Wyo. 85, 111 , grant a new trial on such grounds.

1927Mitter v. Black Diamond Coal Co., 27 Wyo. 72, 76 , 191 Pac. 1069 , 193 Pac. 520 ; Thomas v. Bivin, 32 Wyo. 478, 482 , 235 Pac. 321 . *146 When, as in this case, tbe record on appeal contains a transcript of tbe evidence, as provided in section 6405, and the specifications of error allege that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law, the questions so raised by the record are presented to the trial judge when he reviews the record on appeal, and he may, as held in Allen v. Lewis, 26 Wyo. 85, 111 , grant a new trial on such grounds.