OCR Text |
Show RULE IS LAID DOWN , BYSUPREME COURT Notice of a motion , for a new trial cannot be amended by adding thereto a new and independent ground therefor there-for after the expiration of the time allowed al-lowed by the statute, or enlarged by the court, in which to serve and file Buch a notice of motion. This Is tho ruling of the Supreme court In the caso of the Blue Creek Land and Live Stock company against Anna .Anderson, et a!., affirming the judgment of the trial court In refusing refus-ing tho application of the plaintiff to amend the notice of motion tor a new '.rial, by adding a new ground, almost a month after the time nad expired lu which to serve and file notice of Intention to ruovo for the new trial. The action was one In trespass. Tho plaintiff alleged that the defendant ..claimed an Interest In and wrongfully entered upon a strip of land 470 feet vide la sections 32 and 33, township J 5 north, range 5 west. The trial re-eulted re-eulted in a verdict for tho defendant March 14, 1907. The plaintiff moved fev a new trial, and then asked to amend the notice after the time had expired. The trial court's refusal to accept the amendment at that late date resulted In the, appeal to tho fc3u-preme fc3u-preme courL |