Laws

Watson v, Watson, 53 Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:27:24 +0000
Where the point is raised, the consent to be bind- ing must be shown by the record or the bill of exception S Allen v Levy, 59 Mis S 613 Estoppe L The appellee may also be estopped by his conduct from object- ing that no consent was ha d Allen v Levy, 59 Mis S 613 As where, on reference of the bill to appellee's counsel for suggestions, after holding it longer than the statu- tory period, he is estopped to deny that it was presented in ti Me Allen v Levy, 59 Mis S 613 Illinoi S The rule that the order cannot be made without consent of parties obtains also in Illinoi S Mar- seilles v Howland, 34 111 App 350 1 Marseilles v Howland, 136 111 84 Extended for all Purpose S The order extends the time for every purpose necessary to perfect the bill of excep- tions according to the requirement of the statutes and rules of practic e State v Pugh, 7 Ohio CiRCt Rep 159 Extension to Subsequent Ter M In Michigan, where the time has been ex- tended to a subsequent term, it may be settled at any time during its con- tinuanc e White v Campbell, 25 Mich 464 But compare Definition of Time in the Order, infr A Stay of Proceeding S An order ex- tending the time within which to pre- pare a bill does not operate as a stay of proceedings on the judgment, Wright v Woolfolk, 14 Bush (Ky) 308; nor give further time within which any other act is required to be done by statutes regulating appellate procedure, Wright v Woolfolk, 14 Bus H (Ky) 308 2 Morse v Anderson, 150 U S 157; Jones v Grover, etc, Sewing Mac H Co, 131 U S Appendix c L ; Michigan In S Bank v Eldred, 143 U S 293; Glaspell v Northern Pac RCo , 144 U S 21 1 ; Hume v Bowie, 148 U S 245; Watt v Boone County, 133 Ind 132; Mogan v Thompson, 13 Ore- gon 230 And after the expiration in vacation of an order duly made in term the judge cannot, unless by statute, be authorized to act, even by the consent or agreement of partie S Hake v Strubel, 121 111 325 In Arkansas time cannot be given be- yond the next term after the one at which the exceptions were take N Car- roll v Saunders, 38 Ark 216 Statute Fixing Limit Mandator Y Where the statute allowing an exten- sion of time names a definite limit, an extension beyond such period is not valid, even upon consent of partie S State v Burrow S 33 Ka N 10; Brown v Rhodes, i Ka N 359; Gallaher v Southwood, i Ka N 143; Lownsberry v Rakestraw, 14 Ka N 151; State v Bohan, 19 Ka N 28; State v Smith, 38 Ka N 194 In Missouri it is held that a bill signed after the expiration of the time granted cannot be validated by con- sent of partie S Dorman v Coon, 119 Mo 68; State v Britt, 117 Mo 584; State v Mosley, 116 Mo 545; State z Apperson, 115 Mo 470; State v Scott, 113 Mo 559 3 Bass Furnace Co v Glasscock, 86 Ala 244 By Rule of Court. In People v Little- john, ii Mich 60, it was held that the Circuit Ccourt might be and was au- thorized by a rule of court to again trial judge is held unauthorized to make such an order in vacatio N 1 H DEFINITION OF TIME IN THE ORDERThe order extend- ing the time, 3 or a subsequent order again extending the time, 3 must name a day certai N 4 An order extending the time in- definitely is unauthorized and voi d 5 extend the order after the expiration of the time first limite d 1 Myrick v Merritt, 21 Fla 799; McElfatrick v Coffroth, 29 Ind 37 See When to be Filed, infr A In Illinois the time may be again ex- tended on consent of parties by an or- der made within the time limited by the first ordeRHawes v People, 129 111 123 2 Freeman v Brenham, 17B Mo N (Ky)6og; Smith v Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky) 4 8 O Construction of Statute S Where a statute allows an extension of time to be granted beyond the term, not ex- ceeding a certain defined limit, for the preparation and tender of a bill of ex- ceptions, it does not authorize a filing of the bill after the expiration of the time named in the order, although within the statutory limit. Watson v, Watson, 53 Ark 415 3 Smith v Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky) 480 4 Smith v Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky) 476; Freeman v Brenham, 17B Mo N (Ky)6o 9 .

Autor of the post: Undefined

Where the only excuse for Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:13:57 +0000
5 Smith v Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky) 408; Meadows -v Campbell, I Bush (Ky) 105; Freeman v Brenham, 17B Mo N (Ky)6o8; Stinson v Shafer, 58 Ark No Extension not Implie d An indefinite order will not be implied to extend the time to the end of the statutory perio d Stinson v Shafer, 58 Ark No In Smith v Blakeman, 8 Bush (Ky) 480, it was said: " The security of the rights of litigants, and every con- sideration of sound policy, demands that this provision of the code shall not be so construed as to give the courts authority to so make exten- sions of time as to unnecessarily har- ass or endanger the rights of the successful party, whose judgment is presumptively correct, by making it necessary for him with his counsel, and possibly his witnesses, to be pres- ent in court every day during the entire term to which the extension has been mad e In this case the court gave time indefinitely, or at least until the last day of the ter M If valid, the order placed the appellee completely at the mercy of the opposite party, un- less he saw proper to remain in court from day to day till the term expired, or until the appellants chose to call up the case and present their bill of ex- ception S" Construction of Record Entr Y So where a statute allowed the time to be extended until the end of the next succeeding term, and the order named a day certain for the tendering of the bill, and concluded, " which, when ap- proved, signed, and filed, * * * shall be and become a part of the rec- ord " held, that the last words did not extend the time to file until the end of the next ter M Stinson v Shafer, 58 Ark No To a Day Certai N An order naming a day certain requires the act to be performed before that da Y Where done on the day, it is voi d Hartman, v Ringgenberg, 119 Ind 72; Corbin v Ketcham, 87 Ind 138; Erb v Moak, 78 Ind 569 Contr A In Arkansas it is held that an order of the court granting a party until a day to tender a bill is suffi- ciently complied with by tendering a bill on that da Y Thorn v Delany, 6 Ark 219 Construction of Order S A bill signed October 17 in vacation, under a term order allowing thirty days from Sep- tember 16, was held too lat e Powell v Sturdevant, 85 Ala 243 An order of the Circuit Court in Florida allowing an appellant thirty days' extension in which to settle a bill of exceptions means thirty days from the adjournment of the ter M Lewis v Meginniss, 25 Fla 589 Com- pare Marks v Boone, 24 Fla 177 Order Requiring Submissio N Where the order extending the time provides that the party preparing the bill shall give the opposite party a certain time within which to examine the original or a copy thereof, signature of the bill before the full time ha S been accorded for such examination is invali d Treishel W McGill, 28 111 App 68 Attestation under Statut e Where a time is granted by order of the judge I ORDER UNAPPEALABL e The order extending the time for preparation and signature of a bill of exceptions is not re viewabl e 1 J SIGNATURE UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE S Some eminent authorities hold that, without either order or con- sent of parties, the trial judge may, under unusual circumstances and at discretion, sign a bill after the adjournment of the term, and that such bill will be vali d 2 within which to prepare a bill, and he refuses to sign and seal it, and it be- comes necessary to validate it under a mode provided by statute on affidavit, the attestation and proof by statute must be made within the time limited by order of the court. Widner v Buttles, 3 Colo I 1 Since it depends on a question of fact as to whether sufficient reasons are shown to the trial judge, which he must alone decid e Greenwood v Cobbey, 24 Neb 648 2 California People v Woppner, i4Ca L 437; People v Lee, i4Ca L 510; People v White, 34Cal183 Nevad A State v Salge, I Nev 455; State v Baker, 8 Nev 141 New York Sheldan v Wood, 14 Ho W Pr ( N Y SupeRCt) 19; Bortle v Mellen, 14 Abb Pr ( N Y Supreme Ct) 228 Orego N Che Gong v Stearns, 16 Oregon 219; Ah Lep v Gong Choy, 13 Oregon 205, overruling Holcomb v Teal, 4 Oregon 352; Mogan v Thomp- son, 13 Oregon 230 United State S Herbert v Butler, 14 Blatchf (U S) 357; Dredge v For- syth, 2 Black (U S) 563; Whalen v Sheridan, 18 Blatchf (U S) 308; Coe v Morgan, 13 Fed Rep 844 Alabama In Strader v Alexander, 9 Port (Ala) 444, it was held that a judge might sign a bill of exceptions presented after the adjournment of the term, although counsel for the adverse party objected at the tria L Pool v, Cahawba, etc, RCo, 5 Ala 237 The rule of the above cases was subsequently changed by statute lim- iting the time to the adjournment of the term, or an extension not exceeding ten days thereafter, by written consent of counse L See Ex p Nelson, 62 Ala 379; Pearce v Clements, 73 Ala 257; Wood v Brown, 8 Ala 563 Ignorance of Attorne Y In Coe v Morgan, 13 Fed Rep 844, it was held that where an attorney, through un- familiarity with the rules of practice, failed to have a bill settled within the required time, or to obtain an exten- sion thereof at the trial term, the court might, before judgment entered and while the case was still pending, in its sound discretion, and to prevent hard- ship, allow additional time in which to serve and settle the prepared bil L Poverty of Exceptant. Where the only excuse for failure to serve and file a bill in term was the poverty and illness of the exceptant held, not suffi- cient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 10 What Record must Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 9:59:33 +0000
Whalen v Sheridan, 18 Blatchf (U S) 308; Miiller v Ehlers, 91 U S Day after Ter M It was held in U S v Breitling, 20 How (U S) 252, that a bill of exceptions signed one day after the adjournment of the term was valid, although it does not appear from the record that any consent was give N In Miiller v Ehlers, 91 U S 249, it was said: " That case [U S v Breit- ling, 20 How (U S) 252] went to the extreme verge of the law upon this question of practice, and we are not inclined to extend its operatio N" Presentation must be Reasonabl e But in any event the bill of exceptions cannot be presented to the trial judge to be settled and signed after such a lapse of time as to render it probable that the facts and circumstances of the trial have lapsed from the mind of the trial judge and partie S Burst v Wayne, 13 111 665; Dent v Davison, 52 111 109; Firestone v Firestone, 78 Ind 536; State v Romero, 5 La An N 24; Finley v Whitley, 46 Ohio St 526 Unless there is some minute or mem- orandum of the proceedings to guide the court. Dent v Davison, 52 111 109; Firestone v Firestone, 78 Ind 536 So in Louisiana the rule was strin- gently applied, the court holding that the bill of exceptions taken to a trial held on June 27th, but which was not presented until July 28th following, was too lat e State v Romero, 5 La An N 24 So in Georgia the court refused to consider a bill not tendered to the K NEGLECT OF JUDG e When the exceptant seasonably ten- ders the bill, it is not in-validated by the failure of the judge to sign until after the expiration of the time required by law, as it is the fault of the trial judge, and not of the appellant. 1 10 What Record must Show A GENERALL Y With regard to the time when the bill of exceptions was settled and signed, the record should affirmatively show the seasonable tender, allowance, signature, and sealing thereof 2 trial judge until the lapse of a year after the trial, and where no exceptions pendente lite had been file d Cannon v Young, 92 Ga 164 1 Colorad O Swem v Green, 9 Colo358; Denver v Capelli, 3 Colo236 Florida Mayo v Hynote, 16 Fla Illinoi S Underwood v Hossack, 40 111 98; Klepper v Borchsenius, 13 111 App 318; People v Hawes, 25 111 App 326; Hawes v People, 129 111 123; Magill v Brown, 98 111 235; Hyde Park v Dunham, 85 111 569 ; Hake v Strubel, 121 111 321 Indiana Robertson v Anderso N 106 Ind 152; Ohio, etc, RCo v Cosly, 107 Ind 32; Terre Haute, etc, RCo v Bissell, 108 Ind 113; Thom- son v Madison Bld g , etc, Asso C, 103 Ind 279; Creamer v Sirp, 91 Ind 366; Hamm W Romine, 98 Ind 77 Michiga N People v Judge, 20 Mich 220 Mississipp I McGee v Beall, 63 Mis S 455 Nebraska State v Barnes, 16 Neb 37; Guick v Sachsse, 31 Neb 315 Orego N Che Gong v Stearns, 16 Oregon 219 Tennessee Jones v Burch, 3 Lea (Tenn) 749 Wisconsi N Hale v Haselton, 21 Wi S 322; Fellows v Tate, 14 Wi S 156 Wyoming McBride v Union Pac RCo, 3 Wyoming 183, in effect over- ruling Jubb v Thorp, 2 Wyoming 406; Woods v Hilliard Flume, etc, Co, 2 Wyoming 457 United State S Davis v Patrick, 122 U S 138 In Tennessee it was held immaterial that the bill of exceptions, through oversight, was not signed until after the adjournment of the ter M Jones v Burch, 3 Lea (Tenn) 749 It was held in Field v Gellerson, 80 Me 270, that "if a judge at a trial term sees fit, for his own convenience, to delay his approval of a bill of ex- ceptions, in order to have a more favorable opportunity to test their correctness, and the exceptions as finally allowed are regular in form, we cannot, * * * reject the exception S" Ohio In Doe v Brown, 6 Ohio St 12, it was held that where the record showed that the bill was perfected on the trial, and then formed a part of the record, it is of no consequence that it was actually signed after the trial or even after an adjournment of the court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 Order Extending Ti Me Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 9:45:22 +0000
General Rul e And, in general, where the failure to seasonably pre- pare a bill is due to some cause for which the exceptant is not respon- sible, the appellate court will excuse the default, and deny a motion to strike the bill from the record, Rich- ards v State, 22 Neb 146; Parker v Kuhn, 19 Neb 394; Curran v Wilcox, 10 Neb 449; and compare Smiley v Sampson, i Neb 56; Dobson v Dob- son, 7 Neb 296; Lytle v Arkansas, 9 How (U S) 333; or where the court reporter is unable to prepare a stenographic report of the evidence within the time required by law for signature, Richards v State, 22 Neb 146 2 Alabama Maddox v Brovles, 42 Ala 436; Union India Rubber Co v Mitchell, 37 Ala 314; Kitchen v Move, 17 Ala 143; Hoden v Brown, 22 Ala 572; Cox z/ Whitfield, 18 Ala 738 Ohio Hill v Bassett, 27 Ohio St 597; Acheson v Western Reserve Bank, 8 Ohio 117; Baldwin v State, 6 Ohio 15; Burk v Pittsburg, etc, RCo, 26 Ohio St 643; Black v George, 26 Ohio St 629; State v O'Neal, 3 Ohio CiRCt Rep 393; Meyer v Schroeder, 10 A M L Re C (Ohio) 309; Klugman v Mauk, 6 Cin e L Bul L (Ohio) 665; Thacker v Sheeran, 5 Cin e L Bul L (Ohio) 646; Kerr v State, 36 Ohio St 614; Bettman v Hunt, 12 Cin e L Bul L (Ohio) 286; Heffner v Moyst, 40 Ohio St 112 Estoppel by Eecor d Parties, by con- senting to a formal entry showing the Presumption as to signatur e The cases conflict as to whether the mere signature of a bill raises a presumption that it was signed in time, unless the record on appeal shows that it was not. In some jurisdictions this presumption is indulged, while in others it is not. 1 Order Extending Ti Me It is generally held that an order extending the time must be duly entered and appear by the record propeR2 proper perfection of the bill, are es- topped to dispute it afterward S Pot- ter v Myers, 31 Ohio St 103 Disagreement of Recor d Where a bill and judgment entry agree in showing that a bill of exceptions was allowed during the term, another en- try stating that the bill was allowed nunc pro tune cannot invalidate it.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Baker v Chatfield, 23 Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 9:28:38 +0000
Strader v Marietta, etc, RCo, 2 Cin e SupeRCt Rep (Ohio) 268 1 In California, Colorado, Illinois, In- diana, Nebraska, and Tennessee it is held that signature alone raises the pre- sumption that the bill was seasonably signe d California Reay v Butler, 69Cal Colorad O Swem v Green, 9 Colo361: Gilpin v Gilpin, 12 Colo504 Illinoi S Underwood v Hossack, 40 111 98; Hyde Park v Dunham, 85 111 569; Stein v Kendall, I 111 App 101 Indiana Bowen v Preston, 48 Ind 378 Nebraska Nyce v Shaffer, 20 Neb Tennessee Grubbs v Greer, 5 Cold W (Tenn) 160; State v Warner, 13 Lea (Tenn) 69; McGavock v Pur- year, 6 Cold W (Tenn) 39 As, where sixty days were given in which to file the bill, and the judge's term expired within twenty days after the extension of leave to file, it will be presumed, where the date of signature does not appear, that he signed before he ceased to be judg e Bowen v Preston, 48 Ind 378 Rule in Iowa In the case of Clag- gett v Gray, I Iowa 20, it was said: " Where the bill of exceptions is silent as to when it was settled, we will pre- sume that it was taken in term time regularly, or so settled by agreement, without any reference to the time of the filin g Where such consent appears, either by the bill or agreement, or is not denied here by the appellee, we will consider it reduced to form and made part of the record within the time con- templated by la W Where it appears to have been taken in vacation, and such assent is not shown in one of the methods above stated, and objection is made in this court, we shall strike the bill from the recor d" In Alabama, Kentucky, and Ohio there is no such presumptio N Maddox v Broyles,42 Ala 436; Corley v Evans, 4 Bush (Ky) 410; Hill v Bassett, 27 Ohio St 597 Time Need not be Shown by Bil L The fact that the bill was seasonably signed need not therefore affirmatively appear from the bill itself; where the bill shows signature, and the record entry shows seasonablesignatur eit is sufficient. Rhodes v McFarland, 45 Ala 95; Cox v Whitfield, 18 Ala 738 2 Illinoi S Hance v Miller, 21 Ilk 636; Burst v Wayne, 13 111 664 Indiana Indianapolis v Kollman, 79 Ind 509; Nye v Lewis, 65 Ind 326; Schoonover v Reed, 65 Ind 313 ; Goodwin v Smith, 72 Ind 113; Apple- gate v White, 79 Ind 413; Tracy v Kaufman, 13 Ind 356; Thompson v~ Hathaway, 12 Ind 479; Benson v Baldwin, 108 Ind 106; Loy v Loy, 90 Ind 404; Louisville, etc, RCo v Harrigan, 94 Ind 245; Logansport Gas-Light, etc, Co v Davidson, 51 Ind 472 KentucKy Vandever v Griffith, 2 Mete (Ky) 425 Wyoming Roy v Union Mercan- tile Co, 3 Wyoming 417 Stipulatio N Or a written stipula- tion of parties agreeing thereto should be file d Hake v Strubel, 121 111 321 ; Evans v Fisher, 10 111 453; Brownfield v Brownfield, 58 111 152; Goodrich v Cook, 81 111 41 Extension Shown only by Bil L It is not sufficient where shown only by the bill of exception S Robinson v Anderson, 106 Ind 152; Gray v Elb- ling, 35 Neb 278 Contra Florida The statement in the bill of exceptions that such an order was granted is sufficient evi- dence that it was made where nothing b DATE OF PRESENTATIO N Where not stated in the bill, the date of the judge's signature will be presumed to be the date of the presentation of the bil L 1 C WAIVER OF TI Me The appellee may waive his right to have the bill of exceptions presented within the time required by la W 2 X I FILING THE BILL 1 Generall Y The authorities clearly settle the rule that a bill of exceptions, to be effective, must be filed with the proper official within the time required by la W 3 to the contrary appears in the tran- script. Baker v Chatfield, 23 Fla 540 Entry Nunc pro Tun e Where such an order has been made, but not en- tered on the minutes, the hearing of the case on appeal will be continued, to allow the exceptant to have the order entered nunc pro tune and em- braced in the transcript.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Hiatt v Powell, 55 Ind Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 9:11:31 +0000
Temple v Florida Land, etc, Co, 23 Fla 59; Spencer v Fish, 43 Mich 227; Bothe v Dayton, etc, RCo, 37 Ohio St 147; Mitchell v Thompson, 40 Ohio St No The bill of exceptions, trial docket, and entry of judgment are proper and sufficient evidence to warrant such ordeRBothe z/ Dayton, etc, RCo , 37 Ohio St 147 1 Wood v Ohio Falls Car Co, 136 Ind 598; Orton v Tilden, no Ind 131; She waiter v Bergman, 123 Ind 155; Hale v Matthews, 118 Ind 527; Short v Chicago, etc, RCo, 79 Iowa 73; Swem v Green, 9 Colo358 Construction of Statut e Where a statute in express terms requires that the date of presentation shall be stat- ed in the bill, an indorsement on the margin or back of the bill is insuffi- cient ; the date must appear on the face of the bill itself Buchart v Burger, 115 Ind 123; Orton v Tilden, no Ind 131; Bierly v Harrison, 123 Ind 516; Hermann v Hartmetz, 128 Ind 353; McCoy v State, 121 Ind 160; Buckner v Spaulding, 127 Ind 229; Plymouth v Fields, 125 Ind 323; White v Gregory, 126 Ind 95; McCormick Harvesting Mac H Co v Maas, 121 Ind 132; Rigler v Rigler, 120 Ind 2 People v Williamson, 22 111 App As by an acceptance of the bill by his attorneys, or by an express stipulation between the parties for dela Y People v Williamson, 22 111 App 363- . In Massachusetts it is held that where the bill of exceptions is not pre- sented to the judge within the time specified by Ge N Stat, C 115, 7, the judge may afterwards allow the exceptions if he is satisfied as to their conformity with the truth and the adverse party consents to such allowanc e Walker v Moors, 122 Mas S 501 In Missouri it is held that an ap- pellee is not estopped from objecting to the untimely signature of a bill by a joinder in error or submission of the cause, but he may move to strike it out thereafTer Farrar v Finney, 21 Mo 569 In New York, on the other hand, it was held that settlement out of term would be deemed waived unless objected to before the trial judg e Keefer v Keefer, 2 How Pr ( N Y) 67 3 Arkansa S Garibaldi z/Carroll,33 Ark 568; Walker v State, 35 Ark 386; Toliver 7 /State, 35 Ark 395; Car- roll v Saunders, 38 Ark 216; Carroll v Pryor, 38 Ark 283; Adler v Con- way County, 42 Ark 488; Davis v Nichols, 52 Ark 554; Watson v Wat- son, 53 Ark 415; St Louis, etc, RCo -v Rapp, 39 Ark 558; St Louis, etc, RCo v Holman, 45 Ark 106 Indiana Shulze v McWilliams, 104 Ind 512; Knox v Trafalet, 94 Ind 346; Stewart v State, 113 Ind 505; Rhyan v Dunnigan, 76 Ind 178; Backus v Gallentine, 76 Ind 367; Smith v Ryan, 83 Ind 152; Ackerly v Knox County, 89 Ind 581; Albaugh v James, 29 Ind 398; Everhart v Hollingsworth, 19 Ind 141; Pratt v Allen, 95 Ind 405; Robinson v Anderson, 106 Ind 152; La Rose v Logansport Nat Bank, 102 Ind 332; Flory v Wilson, 83 Ind 391; Kopelke v Kopelke, 112 Ind 435 Massachusett S Shaw v Bunker, 2 Met (Mas S) 376 Missour I Dorman v Coon, 119 Where no Time is Fixe d But where the statute names no definite time for filing the bill, and it has been signed and sealed within the time required for performing those acts, it may be filed after- ward S 1 Mo 68; State v Britt, 117 Mo 584; State v Apperson, 115 Mo 470; State v Scott, 113 Mo 559; Fulkerson v Murdock,i23 Mo 292; Webster County v Cunningham, 101 Mo 642; State v Mayor, 99 Mo 602; State v Hill, 98 Mo 570; Rine v Chicago, etc, RCo, 88 Mo 401; Greene County v Wilhite, 35 Mo App 39; Sinclair v Bolivar, 19 Mo 37; Holloway v Moberly, 18 Mo App 553; Hatcher v Moore, 51 Mo 115; Taylor v Newman, 77 Mo 257; Ellis v Andrews, 25 Mo 327; Hoffelman z/ Frank, 52 Mo 542; Eau Claire Lum- ber Co v Howard, 76 Mo 517; Gaston v Kellogg, 91 Mo 104; Rein- ecke v Jod, 56 Mo 386; Schaeffer v Wengler, 6 Mo App 572; Dale v Patterson, 63 Mo 98; Sutter v Streit, 21 Mo 158; Farrar v Finney, 21 Mo Ohio Chatfield v Swing, 5 Cin e L Bul L (Ohio) 14 Texa S Ivey v Williams, 78 Tex 688 Ver Mont Small v Haskins, 29 Vt 187; Howard v Burlington, 35 Vt 491; Higbee v Sutton, 14 Vt 555 Accordingly, where no question is raised on the pleadings in a cause and no bill of exceptions is filed in time, no question is presented in the appel- late court. Hiatt v Powell, 55 Ind 149; Trueblood v Nicholson, 52 Ind 420; Griesel v Schmal, 55 Ind 475 1 Eldred v Malloy, 2 Colo20 Where the law does not require a bill of exceptions to be filed within a defined time, and the court orders the clerk to make it a part of the record, without specifying the time within which it shall be filed, it is immaterial when it is file d Jones v Hockman, 12 Iowa 108 Filing Unsigned Bil L It is not, of course, sufficient to file an unsigned bill in ti Me It must be both filed and signed in ti Me Kirby v Bowland, 69 Ind 290; Hart v Walker, 77 Ind 331; Sohn v Marion, etc, Gravel Road Co, 73 Ind 77 When "File d" A bill of exceptions is "filed," in contemplation of law, when handed to the clerk for that pur- pose, although the clerk fails to indorse the filing therei N Foster v Hinson, 75 Iowa 291; Sheldon Bank v Royce, 84 Iowa 288 Indorsement.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Argo v Belsar, 8 Cin Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 8:56:47 +0000
It should be indorsed and filed by the clerk, and the tran- script should present a record entry showing that it was filed and made part of the recor d Walker v State, 35 Ark 388 Relief from Failure to Fil e If acci- dent, fraud, or mistake prevents the filing of the bill within the statutory time, the appellant may be relieved by a court of chancer Y Carroll v Pryor, 38 Ark 283 Entr Y Where the bill was filed in time, but was not sent up to the ap- pellate court seasonably, owing to the negligence or mistake of the clerk, without the consent, direction, or procurement of the exceptant, the appeal was not dismisse d Hathorn v Maynard, 65 Ga 170 Under the Act of Georgia of 1877, providing for entering cases on the docket of the appellate court, the cause of delay may be stated in the clerk s certificate, but cannot be shown by evidence aliund e Hancock v Cloud, 65 Ga 208 Where both parties file bills of ex- ceptions, the entry of the action by one party is sufficient. Shattuck v Woods, I Pic K (Mas S) 171 Ohio In Ohio, when taken before a justice, exceptions must be entered at length on his docket. Argo v Belsar, 8 Cin e L Bul L (Ohio) 189 Massachusett S Under Stat1864, C in, requiring questions of law to be entered in this court " as soon as may be" after they are received, by report or otherwise, an excepting party must act within a reasonable time, or he can enter his exceptions only as a matter of favor by the court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

2 3 By Who M Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 8:44:25 +0000
Bentley v Ward, 116 Mas S 333 In Priest FGroton, 103 Mas S 530, it was held that exceptions entered twenty-seven days after their allow- ance, on the last day of a term of the Superior Court, and more than a month before the next law term at which, in the usual course of business, they would be argued, were season- ably entere d Effect of Failure to File in Tim e . Where the statute requiring the bill to be filed within a definite time is not complied with, the bill will be disregarded, or stricken out on motion of the adverse part Y 1 In Bentley v Ward, 116 Mas S 334, a delay of six months was held too lon g Validating Void Bil L In Yeatman v Day, 79 Ky 186, it was held that a legislature had no power to validate a bill of exceptions, void because not filed in time, by a statute amending procedure and acting retroactivel Y Lost Bil L Where the bill is lost by the clerk after signature and before filing, the time elapsing before it is found will be deducted, and will not affect the exceptor's right of appea L Allis v Newman, 29 Neb 207 In Criminal Cage S In Nebraska a prosecuting attorney must, in present- ing a bill of exceptions to the Su- preme Court, under provisions of sec- tion 483 of the Criminal Code, obtain permission of that court to file the same, State v Page, 12 Neb 355; or the cause will be dismissed when filed without leave, State v Hal- phrey, 14 Neb 578 1 Indiana Ford v Griffin, looln d 86; Andis v Personett, 108 Ind 202; Corbin v Ketcham, 87 Ind 138; Shulse v McWilliams, 104 Ind 512; Robinson v Anderson, 106 Ind 152; La Rose v Logansport Nat Bank, 102 Ind 332; Lewis v Wintrode, 76 Ind 15; Henderson v Dickey, 76 Ind 265 Iowa Barber v Scott (Iowa, 1893), 55 N W Rep 502; Cobb v Chase, 54 Iowa 196; McFarland v Folsom, 61 Iowa 117; Mineral Ridge Coal Co v Smith, 68 Iowa 561; Templin v Exchange Bank, 69 Iowa 149; Mc- Carthy v Watrous, 69 Iowa 260; Gibbs v Buckingham, 48 Iowa 96; Hahn v Miller, 60 Iowa 96; Lloyd v Beadle, 43 Iowa 659; Lynch v Ken- nedy, 42 Iowa 220; St John v Wal- lace, 25 Iowa 21 ; Edwards v Cosgro, 77 Ind 428; Deering v Irving, 76 Iowa 519; State v Leach, 71 Iowa 55 Missour I Stevens v Stevens 35 Mo App 50; Wright v Sheur, 55 Mo 71; State v McGinnis, 33 Mo App 683 Excus e The question as to whether there was a reasonable excuse for failure to file the bill cannot be tried in the appellate court on affidavit S \\ ishmier v State, no Ind 525 WaiveRThe bill of exceptions is not necessarily a nullity because filed after the expiration of the time al- lowed by la W The objection may be waived by the appellee, and he will be deemed to waive it where he fails to make a proper and timely objectio N New Albany, etc, RCo v Huff, 19 Ind 315; Brookville, etc, Turnpike Co v McCarty, 8 Ind 392; Porter v Choen, 60 Ind 338; Lotz v Briggs, 50 Ind 346; Adler v Sewell, 29 Ind 598; Wilson v First Presbyterian Church, 60 Iowa 112; Drake v Dodsworth, 4 Ka N 159; Murphy v Cunningham, I Colo471 Consent to Subsequent Filin g So where the bill was filed after expira- tion of time, upon the written consent of the appellee, it was held valid even against objectio N Lotz v Briggs, 50 Ind 346 In Massachusetts it was held that a bill of exceptions filed and presented to the judge during the term of the Superior Court at which the verdict was rendered, and, the case being con- tinued nisi, restored by him at a sub- sequent term to the files of the court, would not be dismissed on motion of the adverse party at such subsequent term, on the grounds that he did not consent to the extension of the time, that he had no notice of filing, and that the bill was not restored ,to the files of the court within the time with the certificate required by Ge N Stat, C 115, 8, as the objection goes to the form of the judge's certificate, and being an objection in form only, was waived by not taking it at the present ter M Hale v Rice, 124 Mas S 297 In Mississippi it is held that where a bill purports to be signed in time it will not be struck out because actu- ally filed after its expiratio N Saucier v Amari, 63 Mis S 277 Indiana Criminal Cas e In Indiana it is held, that while a prosecuting at- torney may, when further appearing in a criminal cause, withhold any ob- jection to a bill of exceptions on ac- count of its not having been filed in time, he has no power to fix the time in the former instance, or to extend the time after it has been fixed by the 2 Where File d The procedure established by statute in most states requires that the bill of exceptions, after being signed and sealed by the trial judge, should be filed with the clerk of the court where the cause was trie d 1 Filing with the trial judge is not sufficient. 2 3 By Who M It is the duty of the appellant, not of the trial judge, to see that the bill is properly file d 3 4 When to be File d As has been previously noticed, the bill should always be filed within the time fixed by statut e 4 And it is a further general rule that a bill of exceptions must, where no statute otherwise provides, be filed before the expiration of the term at which the cause was tried ; 5 and a bill filed in vacation, Marylan d Cross v Cohen, 3 Gill (Md)27 I Nebraska Denver First Nat Bank v Lowrey, 36 Neb 290; Aultman v Patterson, 14 Neb 57 Change of Venu e Even although the cause has been remanded back, at the time of filing, to the court whence the venue had been change d McMahan v Spinning, 51 Ind 187 A bill of exceptions filed in a court to which the venue is changed will not save an exception taken in the court fromwhichthevenue is changed, though the same judge presides in both court S Cincinnati, etc, RCo v Leviston, 97 Ind 489 2 Kosciusko County v Eperson, 50 Ind 275 3 Gulf, etc, RCo v Halliday, 65 Tex 512 4 See I Generally, ant e 5 Colorad O Or man v Keith, i Colo82 Indiana Lee v Hills, 66 Ind 474; Ogborn v Hoffman, 52 Ind 439; Johnson v Bell, 10 Ind 363; Fletcher v State, 49 Ind 124; Montgomery v Hays, 59 Ind 291; Thompson v Eagleton, 33 Ind 300; Earl v Dresser, 30 Ind n; Vandoren v Kimes, 29 Ind 582; Vanness v Bradley, 29 Ind 388; Harrison v Price, 22 Ind 165; Roloson v Herr, 14 Ind 539; Long v Dixon, 55 Ind 352; Marshall v Beeber, 53 Ind 83; Griesel v Schmal, 55 Ind 475; Eshelman v Snyder, 82 Ind 498; Backus v Gallentine, 76 Ind 367; Hart v Walker, 77 Ind 331; Supreme Lodge v Johnson, 78 Ind no; Heaton v White, 85 Ind 382; Bishop z State, 83 Ind 67; Stribling v Tripp, 86 Ind 166; Mcllvain v Emery, 88 Ind 298; Mullany v Indianapolis First Nat Bank, 89 Ind 424; Carithers v Stuart, 87 Ind 424; Bruce v State, 87 Ind court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

" A statute granting the " Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 8:32:52 +0000
Such an agreement does not, in a criminal case, constitute a waiveRBartley v State, in Ind 358 Wisconsi N In Wisconsin the de- fendant in error should move in the trial court to strike it from the files for untimely filing, and upon the hearing the plaintiff in error should be allowed to show his excuse, if he has any, why he should not be allowed to file nunc pro tun e Castleman v Griffin, 13 Wi S 535; Ottillie v Wachter, 33 Wi S 252 In Missouri it is held that when filed after the expiration of the trial term, without leave of the trial court first obtained, it will be ignored, al- though no motion to strike out is made, as it constitutes no part of the record and can confer no jurisdiction of the points raise d Knapp Real Estate, etc, Asso C v American Re- frigerator Transit Co (Mo, 1895), 30 S W Rep 155 Second Bill at Subsequent Ter M Where a prior bill of exceptions has been rejected by the trial judge, and no resort is had to a mandamus before the time to file has expired, the ex- ceptor cannot save his lost bill by moving at a subsequent term to set aside the judgment and take a second bill of exceptions in which the first bill is incorporate d The second bill, although signed, does not raise for review the questions sought to be presented by the prior on e Greene County v White, 35 Mo App 46; Garth v Caldwell, 72 Mo 622 1 Georgia Russell v March, 6 Ga 491; Wells v Hasty, 7 Ga 153 Indiana Kosciusko County v Eperson, 50 Ind 275; McMahan v Spinning, 51 Ind 187 A'ansa S Jackson v Stoner, 17 Ka N 35; Brown v Rhodes, i Ka N 359 450; Calvert v State, 91 Ind 473; Hunter v State, 101 Ind 406; Shir- cliff v State, 96 Ind 369; Huff v Krause, 63 Ind 398; De Haven v De Haven, 46 Ind 296; Thomas v Hunt- er, 44 Ind 477; Bargis v Farrar, 45 Ind 41; Logansport Gas-Light, etc, Co v Davidson, 51 Ind 472; State v Sorrels, 60 Ind 381: Nofsinger v Reynolds, 52 Ind 218; Brouse v Price, 20 Ind 216; Rinehartf Bowen, 44 Ind 353; Rabb v Graham, 43 Ind i; Scanlan v Ayres, 73 Ind 211; Singer Mfg Co v Struckman, 72 Ind 601; Rodenwald v Edwards, 77 Ind 221; Hall's Safe, etc, Co v Rigby, 79 Ind 150; Gaff v Hutchinson, 38 Ind 341; Porter v Wilson, 35 Ind 348; Miles v Buchanan, 36 Ind 503; Atkin- son v Gwin, 8 Ind 376; Lawton v Swi- hart, 10 Ind 562; Simonton v Hunt- ington, etc, Plank Road Co, 12 Ind 380; Peck v Vankirk, 15 Ind 159; Maf- fett v Pollard, 19 Ind 178; Timmons v Vancleve, 19 Ind 291 ; Ruston v Bid- die, 43 Ind 515; Howard v Burke, 14 Ind 35; Everhart v Hollingsworth, 19 Ind 138; Scanlan v Ayres, 73 Ind 211 ; Schoonover v Reed, 66 Ind 598; Scheible v Law, 65 Ind 332; Nichols v State, 65 Ind 512; Miller v Muir, 63 Ind 496; Louisville, etc, RCo v Lafland, 38 Ind 55; Moss v Kendall, 20 Ind 485; Doe v Makepeace, 8 Blackf (Ind) 575 Kansa S Brown v Rhodes, I Ka N Maine Fish v Baker, 74 Me 107; Belmont v Morrill, 69 Me 314; Cam- eron v Tyler, 71 Me 27 Marylan d Schulze v Fox, 53 Md Missour I State v Jacobs, 39 Mo App 122 Ohio Doe v Brown, 6 Ohio St 12 Texa S Campbell v Cook (Tex Civ App, 1894), 24 S W Rep 977; Treze- ant v Rains (Tex Civ App, 1894), 25 S W Rep 1092; Marshall v Spillane (Tex Civ App, 1894), 27 S W Rep 162; Price v Lauve, 49 Tex 80 Iowa Under Code Iowa, 2831, providing that a bill must be filed in term, or within such time thereafter as the court may fix but in no event shall the time extend more than thirty days beyond the expiration of the term, except by consent of parties or order of the judge the bill must be filed during the term, to validate it, unless the time is extended by consent or ordeRDeering v Irving, 76 Iowa 1 Engleman v Arnold, 118 Ind Si; Jones v Jones, 91 Ind 72; Applegate v White, 79 Ind 413; Indianapolis v Kollman, 79 Ind 504; Nye v Lewis, 65 Ind 326; Schoonover v Reed, 65 Ind 313; Goodwin v Smith, 72 Ind 113; Benson v Baldwin, 108 Ind 106 Missour I In Missouri it was held that no valid bill of exceptions could be filed after the expiration of the term at which the exceptions were taken, except by consent of parties en- tered on the record by leave of court during the term, and then only within the time agreed upo N Stevens v Stevens, 35 Mo App 50; West v Fowler, 55 Mo 300; Sinclair v Bol- ivar, 19 Mo App 37; Clark v Bul- lock, 65 Mo 535; Cuomo v St Joseph, 24 Mo App 569; Smith v Pollack, 58 Mo 161; Dale v Paterson, 63 Mo 98; McCarty v Cunningham, 75 Mo 279; Taylor v Newman, 77 Mo 262; Gill v Scruggs, 79 Mo 187; Holloway v Moberly, 18 Mo App 553 Under Rev StatMo, 1879, 3636, as amended by Act of March 28, 1885, the order extending time to file must be made by the court and entered of recor d State v Mayor, 99 Mo 602 In Vacatio N But Rev Stat1889, 2168, allows such an order to be made in vacation by the judg e State v Mayor, 99 Mo 602 In Missouri the term at which a bill may be filed is that at which a motion for new trial made in the cause is de- cide d Hurt v King, 24 Mo App 593 See X Time for Settlement and Signature, supr A KentucKy A code provision allow- ing time to be given, but not beyond the succeeding term, was held in Ken- tucky not construable so as to allow it to be filed in vacatio N Allard v Smith, 2 Mete (Ky) 297; Vandever v Griffith, 2 Mete (Ky) 425 Inclusion of Proceedings Prior to Trial Rule in Indiana In Smith v Lot- ton, 5 Ind App 177, it was held that where a bill was filed after the term at which the trial was had and at which a motion for new trial was re- fused, it could not properly embrace a matter such as a motion to strike out a pleading occurring before the tria? 5 Extension of Time A GENERALL Y No court or judge can extend the time designated by statute for filing a bill of excep- tions without express statutory authorit Y 1 Where no time is and at a previous ter M The same rul- ing was held in Smith v Flac K 95 Ind 116; Thomas v Griffin, i Ind App 457; Boyce v Graham, 91 Ind 420; Smith S Lotton, 5 Ind App 177; Mul- lany v Indianapolis First Nat Bank, 89 Ind 424; Cardwill v Gilmore, 86 Ind 428; Ryman v Crawford, 86 Ind 263; Pitzer v Indianapolis, etc, RCo, 80 Ind 569 But compare Deither v Ferguson Lumber Co (Ind App, 1894), 36 N E Rep 765 It was held that the statement in Deither v Ferguson Lumber Co (Ind App, 1894), 36 N E Rep 765, that a motion to strike an answer from a deposition could not be carried into the record by a general bill of exceptions filed pursu- ant to leave granted at a subsequent term of the court, is obiter dictum, and leaves the question open for further consideratio N 1 Arkansa S Carroll v Pryor, 38 Ark 283; Carroll v Saunders, 38 Ark 216; Adler v Conroy County, 42 Ark 488 Indiana Dunn v State, 29 Ind 259; Stewart v State, 24 Ind 142; Kiphart v State, 42 Ind 273; State v Harper, 38 Ind 13; State v Jones, 37 Ind 179; Fitzenrider v State, 30 Ind 238; Jenks v State, 39 Ind I Iowa Deering v Irving, 76 Iowa 519 In Indiana this is expressly provided for by Rev Stat1881, 629, Hamm v Romine, 98 Ind 78; Creamer v Sirp, 91 Ind 366; thus modifying the rule, previously advanced, which held that a bill must be filed within the time fixed by the court or it was a nullity, Gaff v Hutchinson, 38 Ind 341; Ever- hart v Hollingsworth, 19 Ind 138; Scanlan v Ayres, 73 Ind 211 On Appeal to General from Special Term Where an appeal is taken froM a special term to a general term of the same court, the bill of exceptions will be considered if filed within the time allowed by the special term, though prior thereto the cause was sub- mitted on the transcript alon e Gris- sel v Noel Bro S Flour-Feed Co (Ind App, 1894), 36 N E Rep 452 In Illinois the court may, at a subse- quent term and within the time limited for filing the bill, by an order entered in term time upon express stipulation of parties, extend the time for filing such bil L People v Hawes, 25 111 App 326 Indiana And where an extension has once been granted it can, in Indiana, be again extended only by CONSENT Robertson v Johnson, 61 Ind 535; Davidson v State, 62 Ind 276 Further Extensio N Where an order to extend the time can be made only on agreement of the parties, it can- not be again extended over objectio N Trentman v Swartzell, 85 Ind 447; Greenup v Crooks, 50 Ind 410; Rhy- an v Dunnigan, 76 Ind 178; Boyer v Libey, 88 Ind 235 But where the appellee is present when a motion for such further exten- sion is made, and makes no objection, he will be presumed to acquiesc e Sweetser v McCrea, 97 Ind 404; Nel- son v Vance, 55 Ind 394; Nontocut v Buckles, 60 Ind 577 A Judge pro tern has power, where duly notified, to grant an extension of time to file if the regular judge would have had it. Lerch v Emmett, 44 Ind 331 Meaning of Statutory Term " Court." A statute granting the " court " power to extend time cannot be construed to authorize a judge to grant an order in vacation or at chamber S Whitworth v Sour, 57 Ind 108; Vanness v Brad- ley, 29 Ind 388; McElfatrick v Coff- roth, 29 Ind 37; Roloson v Herr, 14 Ind 559 When Jurisdiction to Extend Cease S Where a statute grants power to extend the time to file bills of exceptions, the jurisdiction of the trial court to exer- cise the authority granted is not ex- hausted until the final judgment is rendered and the parties are out of court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

a b WHAT TIME Post Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 8:16:31 +0000
Barnaby v State, 106 Ind Where, therefore, a motion for new trial was overruled, and sixty days' time given in which to make out and file a bill of exceptions, and the cause continued, and no bill was then filed, but at /}\ following term, when final judg- ment was rendered, the court granted additional time within which the bill was filed held, that it was properly in named by statute, or where authorized by law, an order extending the time must, unless statutes provide otherwise, be made in term ti Me 1 The order must be made before the original time for fil- the recor d Barnaby v State, 106 Ind 539 Further Extensio N Where an ex- tension of time has expired the court cannot thereafter again extend it, especially where no notice has been given the opposite part Y Rosenbaum v Partch, 85 Iowa 409 Arkansa S In Arkansas, under Mansf Di g, 5157, providing that time may be given, not exceeding the succeeding term of the court, to file a bill of exceptions, an order extending the time passes beyond the jurisdiction of the court at the expiration of the trial term and cannot be abrogated, certified, or extended thereafTer Da- vies -v Nichols, 52 Ark 555 Missour I Under the practice of Mis- souri it was formerly held that but one order extending the time to file could be mad e The trial court or judge had no power, after the adjournment of the term at which the exceptions were taken, to grant a further extension by a second order, whether taken before or after the time limited in the first or- deRKansas City v Allen, 28 Mo App 133; Duvall v Mastin, 28 Mo App 526 But under Rev StatMo 1889, 2168, a stipulation by parties or their attorneys for the extension of the time for filing a bill of excep- tions may be made at least during the vacation immediately succeeding the term at which the exceptions were taken, and it may enlarge the time already allowed by a previous order of the court for the filing of such bill, and be made after the expiration of the period of extension provided for by such ordeRScarritt Furniture Co v Moser, 48 Mo App 543; State v McO'Blenis, 31 Mo 272 Computation of Ti Me The day on which leave is granted is excluded and the last day included in comput- ing the time given for filin g Baker v Arctic Ditchers, 54 Ind 313; State v Thorn, 28 Ind 306; Byers v Hickman, 36 Ind 359; Walker v Woollen, 54 Ind 164 Sunda Y In Massachusetts Sunday is excluded from the three days al- lowed by Pu b Stat, C 153, 8, for the filing of a bill of exception S Cow- ley v McLaughlin, 141 Mas S 181; Thayer v Felt, 4 Pic K (Mas S) 354; Hannum v Tourtellott, 10 Allen (Mas S) 494; Cunningham v Mahan, 112 Mas S 58 Construction of Order Vacatio N Where an order is made to file the bill in "vacation," the next ensuing vacation of the court at which the order is made is intende d Satonstall v Canal Com'rs, 13 111 705 KentucKy A code provision that " time may be given to prepare a bill of exceptions, but not beyond a day in the succeeding term, to be fixed by .the court," implies the right to file the bill at any time during the term before the day fixed in the order; and a tender thereof is equivalent to filin g Meaux v Meaux, 81 Ky 475 1 People v Hawes, 25 111 App 326 Time Limited in the Order must be Complied Wit H The time limited by the order must, of course, be strictly complied with, Flory v Wilson, 83 Ind 391; Pierce v State, 75 Ind 199; Colee v State, 75 Ind 51*1; Hunter v State, 102 Ind 428; otherwise the bill of exceptions will be disregarded, Sinclair v Bolivar, 19 Mo App 37; McCarty v Cunningham, 75 Mo 279; Taylor v Newman, 77 Mo 257 Nonjudicial Da Y The bill must be filed within the time named in ihe or- der, although the last day falls on a nonjudicial da Y The next day will not d O Cooney v Burt, 123 Mas S To a Day Name d An extension of time until a day named does not in- clude that da Y Eshelman v Snyder, 82 Ind 500; Erb v Moak, 78 Ind 569; Corbin v Ketcham, 87 Ind 138 Intervention of Other Proceeding S Where, on overruling a motion for new trial, exceptions are taken at the time, and on the same day leave of court is asked and granted for a specified period of time beyond the term in which to file a bill of exceptions, and it is properly filed therein, it is prop- erly in the record, although other proceedings in the cause intervene between the time of taking the excep- tions and leave of court granted for the filing of the bil L Kopelke v Kopelke, 112 Ind 435; Vogel v Har- ris, 112 Ind 494 ing has expired, 1 as thereafter the court has no jurisdiction to grant it. a b WHAT TIME FIXE d The time fixed in the order should be definite to a day certain, 3 and the period named lies within the discretion of the judge, within the statutory limit S 4 C BY CONSENT Where parties expressly so consent the bill may, at common law, be filed in vacation unless statutes manda- torily designate a time for filin g 5 1 State v Ryan, 120 Mo 88; State S Berry, 103 Mo 367; State v Hill, 98 Mo 570; State v Broderick, 70 Mo 622 2 Dorman v Coon, 119 Mo 68; Burdoin v Trenton, 116 Mo 358; State v Britt, 117 Mo 584; State v Apperson, 115 Mo 470; State v Scott, 113 Mo 559; State v Seaton, 106 Mo 198; State v Mosley, 116 Mo 545; State v Hill, 98 Mo 570; State v Har- ben, 105 Mo 603; State v Ryan, 120 Mo 88 After Expiration of OrdeRAfter the expiration of the time fixed in the order extending the time, the trial court is without jurisdiction to again extend the time or validate a bill then first tendere d State v Mosley, 116 Mo 545; State v Hill, 98 Mo 570; State v Seaton, 106 Mo 198; State v Harben, 105 Mo 603; State v Berry, 103 Mo 367; State v Apperson, 115 Mo 470 When filed after the time named in the order has expired, the bill of ex- ceptions is voi d Meadows v Camp- bell, i Bush (Ky) 105; Bailey v Vil- lier, 6 Bush (Ky) 27; Louisville, etc, RCo v Turner, 81 Ky 491; Free- man v Brenham,i7B Mo N (Ky) 604; Gordon v Ryan, i J J Marsh (Ky) 57; Mogan v Thompson, 13 Oregon 230; State v Leach, 71 Iowa 54; Wat- son v Watson, 53 Ark 415 3 Lansing v Coats, 18 Ind 166 " Until next term of court " was held too indefinite, in Lansing v Coats, 4 Merrick v State, 63 Ind 327 The order granting leave to file after the expiration of the term must appear of record; a statement in the bill is not sufficient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231 | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | 258 | 259 | 260 | 261 | 262 | 263 | 264 | 265 | 266 | 267 | 268

mail to: pirton@mail.ru