Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/139

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
GOULD v. DULUTH AND DAKOTA ELEV. CO.
99

dated March 29th, 1892; and, except as hereby suspended, said order stands. Wm. B. McConnell, Judge. April 2nd, 1892.” It appears on the record that the last mentioned order “was made on motion of defendant's attorney, in order to free his appeal from the plaintiff's motion.” From the last mentioned order defendant, on April 4th, 1892 perfected an appeal to this court; and thereafter, on April 23rd, 1892, the plaintiff appealed to this court from so much of the first order of the District Court (that of March 2gth, 1892) as denied plaintiff's motion “that the judgments herein be in all things confirmed, or that plaintiff do have judgment on the verdict for the amount thereof, with interest and costs.”

In this court, defendant assigns the following errors: First, “That Judge Rose had no authority to sign the judgments, or to order them to be entered by the clerk of this court, and especially had no authority to do so beyond the limits of the Third Judicial District.” Second, “That the proceeding of the plaintiff in causing two judgments to be entered herein is irregular, and contrary to law and the practice of this court.” Third, “That said judgments were rendered and entered without notice to the defendant or its attorney.” Plaintiff's assignments of error in this court are briefly as follows: First, The District Court erred in refusing to grant plaintiff's motion, because the counter motion of plaintiff was justified by defendant’s motion to vacate the judgments. Second, If the judgments were void, then the court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for another and valid judgment.

We can discover no merits in either of plaintiff's assignments of error. Plaintiff's motion was, under the circumstances, uncalled for, and premature. One branch of the relief sought by the motion was a confirmation of judgments already entered in plaintiff's favor. While plaintiff's judgments stood of record as entered, their confirmation would be superfluous and meaningless; and whether the judgments were to stand intact or not was the sole question to be determined by the motion previously made by defendant, and then pending. The other branch of plaintiff's