
    RASOR v. MOTT.
    Appeal and Error — Extension op Time — Statutes.
    Where a writ of error was sued out more than ten days after the hill of exceptions was signed, and the showing made on motion to dismiss indicates very clearly that appellant was not in fault, this court, in construing section 6 of the judicature act (Act No. 314, Pub. Acts 1915) authorizing this court to extend the time beyond ten days, will allow said writ to stand as if showing had been made before the writ was taken out, and the motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
    Ejectment by King Rasor and another against Cassius M. Mott. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs bring error. On motion to dismiss.
    Submitted October 3, 1916.
    (Calendar No. 27,506.)
    Denied December 22, 1916.
    O. G. Tuttle, for the motion.
    
      Carl H. McLean, contra.
    
   Moore, J.

Judgment in this case was entered June 2, 1916. The bill of exceptions was signed August 11th, and writ of error was issued August 24, 1916. This is a motion to dismiss the writ of error, because it was not obtained within 10 days after the bill of exceptions was signed. The motion to dismiss is opposed for the reason that the plaintiffs were in no way responsible for the delay in suing out the writ of error. The motion involves a construction of section 6, chap. 50, of the new judicature act (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 13741). The showing made indicates very clearly that the delay in suing out the writ of error beyond ten days is a delay for Which the appellants are in no wise responsible. The act authorizes this court, upon a proper showing made, to extend the time beyond ten days after the bill of exceptions has been signed. On the 10th of April, 1916, in the unreported case of Blake v. Insurance Co., we construed this act and granted an extension of the time beyond the ten days. In the instant case the bill of exceptions has been signed and the writ of error has been sued out. If the showing made upon this motion had been made to this court before the writ of error was sued out, we should have felt bound to extend the time in which to take out the writ of error. Inasmuch as the writ of error has been taken out, it may stand the same as though an extension of time had been granted upon a proper showing.

The appellee will be granted costs.

Stone, C. J., and Kuhn, Ostrander, Bird, Steere, and Brooke, JJ., concurred. Person, J., did not sit.  