Laws

So a motion to reform Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 4:29:24 +0000
A bill of exceptions is the proper remedy to review a decision on a nonsuit. Strother v Hutchin- son, 4 Bin g N Ca S 83, 33 E C L 283 Montana Code Civ Pro Montana, section 296, provides that a new trial may be had on the ground of " insuf- ficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or that it is against law," and error in law occur- ring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application; "and where a judgment of nonsuit is ren- dered for insufficiency of plaintiff's evi- dence to establish his case, it may be reviewed on a motion for new trial under the above section, and the record upon which the nonsuit is granted may be brought up by a bill of exception S" McKay v Montana Union RCo, 13 Mont 15, modifying Kleinschmidt v McAndrews, 4 Mont 8 4 Reforming Judgment. So a motion to reform a judgment must be em- braced in the bill of exception S Adams v Duggan, i Tex App Civ Ca S, 1268 5 Motion for Jury Tria L The action of the court in overruling a motion for a trial by jury can only be reviewed by a bill of exception S Hauser v Roth, 37 Ind 89 6 To Quash Forthcoming Bon d A motion made and sustained to quash a forthcoming bond and the pro- ceedings thereupon must be made part of the record of the bill of excep- tion S Sprawles v Barnes, I Smed M (Mis S) 629; Mattheny v Totten, 2 Smed M (Mis S) 52; Abbott v Hack- man, 2 Smed M (Mis S) 510 The judgment thereon, the execu- tion, and the bond should be embraced in the bil L Merrett v Vance, 6 Ho W (Mis S) 498; Huston v Hayter, 6 Ho W (Mis S) 580; Kerr v Robertson, 5 How (Mis S) 278 7 Perkins v McDowell, 3 Wyoming 328; Siebert v State, 95 Ind 471; Compton v State, 89 Ind 338; Sidener v Davis, 87 Ind 342; Smith v Smith, 77 Ind 80; Harrison County v Benson, 83 Ind 469; Lawless v Harrington, 75 Ind 379; Baker v Simmons, 40 Ind 442; McElwee v People, 77 111 493 See article CHANGE OF VENU e 8 A motion by a defendant to be dis- charged from custody, the affidavit supporting it, and the ruling of the court thereon must be brought in by bill of exceptions or order of court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

To Recommit Interrogatories to Jur Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 4:14:25 +0000
State -v Cooper, 103 Ind 75; Beard v, State, 57 Ind 8 9 A motion to discharge a receiver must be brought up in the bil L Cot- trell v ^Etna L In S C O 97 Ind 312 10 A ruling on a motion to remove a cause from a state court to the federal court is reviewable on bill of exceptions onl Y Wabash, etc, RCo v People, 106 111 652; Hartford F In S Co v Vanduzor, 49 111 489 11 A motion, alleged to be erron- eous, for execution on a final judg- ment, and the decision of the court thereon, can only be brought up for re- view on a bill of exception S Thomas v Savage, 8 Wi S 160 12 A motion to exclude attorneys from participation in trial, with excep- tion and rulings thereon, must be brought up by bil L Burns v People, 126 111 285 13 Other Instance S To Strike Out Evidence or a Depositio N Kiley v Murphy, 7 Ind App 239 ; Toledo, etc, RCo v Mylott,6 Ind App 438 To Reinstate a Caus e Swope v Smith, i Ok La 283 To Modify a Decre e Allen v Berndt, 133 Ind 355 To Open a Default De Pedrorena v Hotchkiss, 95Cal636 5 Affidavit S The same rule applies to the affidavits and papers upon which the motions or proceedings rest ; they are in the na- ture of evidence, and can only be considered by the appellate court when brought up and made a part of the record by being incorporated into a bill of exception S 1 See also article APPEALS, Vo L I I, p 270 To Strike out Pleading S Nichols v State, 65 Ind 512; Merritt -v Cobb, 17 Ind 314; Princeton School Town v Gebhart, 61 Ind 187; Berlin v Oglesbee, 65 Ind 308; Greensburgh, etc, Turnpike Co v Sidener, 40 Ind 424; De Pedrorena v Hotchkiss, 95 Ca L 636 To Strike out an Exhibit. Collins v Cornwell, 131 Ind 20; Klingler v Smit H 131 Ind 524 Motions in Judgment OrdeRSuch motions or exceptions do not become part of the record, because they may appear in the judgment order of the court or in the order allowing the ap- peal, and there certified to by the cler K The law demands the certifi- cate of the judge thereto, and not the cler K Wolf v Campbell, 23 111 App 485 For an Awar d A motion asking an award of a jury to assess damages for condemnation of lan d Kansas City, etc, RCo v Carlisle, 94 Mo 1 66'. To Recommit Interrogatories to Jur Y Louisville, etc, RCo v Shanks, 132 Ind 395 To Amend the Judgment Entry Nunc fro Tun e Wiggins v Witherington, 96 Ala 535 For Judgment on Answers to Inter- rogatorie S Redinbo v Fretz, 99 Ind 458 To be Allowed to Come in and Defen d Monroe City Bank v Finks, 40 Mo App 367 To Separate and Number Paragraph S Balue v Richardson, 124 Ind 480 Motion in a Criminal Trial to Post- pone Case, and Affidavit on which it is Base d Kennedy v State, 66 Ind Entries on Motion Docket.

Autor of the post: Undefined

A motion copied into Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 4:01:28 +0000
Entries on the motion docket of the trial court are no part of the record proper on appeal, although copied into the tran- script. Swearingen v Wilson, 2 Tex Civ App 157 Their only effect is to entitle the parties to a nunc pro tune order showing the action of the trial court upon the motio N Ximenes v Ximenes, 43 Tex 458 Copied in Transcript. A motion copied into the transcript in connection with the order-book entry thereof, and coupled with a reference thereto in the bill, is not properly before the court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Lisher 23 Ind 500; Douglass Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 3:49:00 +0000
Gusman v Gusman (Ind, 1895), 39 N E Rep 918 Motions in an Intermediate Appellate Court. Where a motion is made in an intermediate court of appeals for affirmance of a judgment for lack of prosecution, the ruling of the lower court thereon will not be reviewed unless brought up by bill of excep- tion S Missouri v Post, 76 Mo 411 Ohio Motion to Dismiss Petition in ErroRA motion to dismiss a peti- tion in error upon the alleged ground that summons in error was not served nor appearance entered within two years after rendition of the judgment below, was heard in the circuit court upon evidence, and sustaine d No bill of exceptions was taken, but the court stated upon the record the facts found from the evidence, and upon which the dismissal was ordere d Held, that sec- tion 6710 Rev Stat(Ohio) does not authorize a finding of facts in such a proceeding, and that the order of dis- missal was not reversible on such a record in the absence of a bill of ex- ceptions containing all the evidenc e Columbus, etc, RCo v Thurstin, 44 Ohio St 525 Washingto N Where a formal entry disclosed a motion to strike an answer from the files, hearing and decision thereon, and due exception thereto held, reviewable, without bill of ex- ception S Tullis v Shannon, 3 Wash 716 Iowa Under section 3184 of the Iowa Code, by properly filing a motion made during the progress of a cause it becomes a part of the record propeRLemonds v Fiench, 4 Greene (Iowa), 123; Mays v Deaver, i Iowa 216; Ellsworth v Moore, 5 Iowa 486 1 Alabama Diston v Hood, 83 Ala 331 Where Part of Record PropeRWhile the general rule, as has just been stated, is one of the fundamental doctrines of appellate pro- California People v Stonecifer, 6 Ca L 405; Gates v Buckingham, 4 Ca L 286; Bagnall v Roach, 76Cal108 Florida Hellen v Steinwender, 28 Fla 191 Georgia Thorpe v State, 92 Ga 470; Jenkins v State, 92 Ga 470 Illinoi S Roundy v Hunt, 24 111 598; Smith v Wilson, 26 111 186; Bedee v People, 73 111 320; Hulett v Ames, 74 111 253; Cairo, etc, RCo v Easterly, 89 111 156; Cummings v McKinney, 5 111 57; Chicago, etc, RCo v Bowman, 122 111 595; Edwards v, Patterson, 10 111 209; Gregory v Spencer, 3 111 App 80; Holmes v People, 10 111 478; Horn v Neu, 63 111 539; Earll v People, 73 111 329; Bishop Hill Colony v Edgerton, 26 111 54; Chicago, etc, RCo v Goy- ette, 133 111 21 ; McDonald v Arnout, 14 111 58; Atkinson v Linden Steel Co, 138 111 187; Gunderson v Sirborn, 31 111 App 612; Mutual Bld g, etc, Asso C v Tascott, 143 111 305 Indiana Colee v State, 75 Ind 512; Black v Daggy, 13 Ind 383; Miles v Buchanan, 36 Ind 490; Stew- art v Rankin, 39 Ind 161; Smiths'. Lisher 23 Ind 500; Douglass v State, 72 Ind 385; Blizzard v Phebus, 35 Ind 284; Round v State, 14 Ind 493; Leyner v State, 8 Ind 490; Taylor v Fletcher, 15 Ind So; Cochranz'.

Autor of the post: Undefined

So affidavits on motion Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 3:31:08 +0000
Dodd, 16 Ind 476; Murphy v Tilly, n Ind 511; Wilson v Truelock, 19 Ind 389; Merritt v Cobb, 17 Ind 314; Hassel- back v Sinton, 17 Ind 545; Horton v Wilson, 25 Ind 316; Whiteside v Adams, 26 Ind 250; Bell v Rinker, 29 Ind 267; Fisher v Ewing, 30 Ind 130; Potter v Stiles, 32 Ind 318; Au- rora F In S Co - U Johnson, 46 Ind 317; Indianapolis, etc, RCo v Wyatt, 16 Ind 204; Hopkins v Greensburg, etc, Turnpike Co, 46 Ind 187; Martin v Harrison, 50 Ind 270; McClure v State, 116 Ind 169; Chambers v Butcher, 82 Ind 508; Swan v Clark, 80 Ind 57; Rudolph S Landwerlen, 92 Ind 34; Compton v State, 89 Ind 338; Marks v Jacobs, 76 Ind 216; Shields v McMahan, 101 Ind 591; Kleespies v State, 106 Ind 383; Chambers v Kyle, 87 Ind 83; Williams v Potter, 72 Ind 354; Wray v Tindall, 45 Ind 517; Townsend v State, 132 Ind 315; Meredith v State, 122 Ind 514; Wood v Crane, 75 Ind 207; Stott v Smith, 70 Ind 298; Mc- Donald v State, 74 Ind 214; Jerauld v Watkins, i Ind App 466; Gross v Haisley, 2 Ind App 23; Kennedy v State, 66 Ind 370; Kesler v Myers, 41 Ind 543; Iddings v Iddings, 134 Ind 322; Gandolpho v State, 33 Ind 439; McDaniel v Mattingly, 72 Ind 349; Beck v State, 72 Ind 250; Elbert v Hoby, 73 Ind in; Parker S Indianapolis Nat Bank, i Ind App 462; Gallimore v Blankenship, 99 Ind 390; Jamieson v Cass County, 56 Ind 466; Conner v Winton, 10 Ind 25; Smawley v Stark, 9 Ind 386; Urton -v Luckey, 17 Ind 213; State v Saxon, 42 Ind 484; Tilman v Harter, 38 Ind i; Burke v State, 72 Ind 392; Lewis v Ewing, 70 Ind 282; Aurora F In S Co v Johnson, 46 Ind 315; Harrison School T P v Mc- Gregor, 96 Ind 185 Iowa Abbee v Higgins, 2 Greene (Iowa) 535; Cook v Steuben County Bank, i Greene (Iowa) 447 Kansa S State v Devine, 49 Ka N 252; Backus v Clark, I Ka N 303; Altschiel -v Smith, 9 Ka N 90; Jenks v School DiSt No 38, 18 Ka N 356 Michiga N Ringelberg v Peterson, 76 Mich 107 Mississipp I Hollingsworth v Wil- lis, 64 Mis S 152; Ross v Garey, 7 Ho W (Mis S) 47 Missour I Tiffin v Forrester, 8 Mo 642 Montana Sherman v Higgins, 7 Mont 479; 'Barber v Briscoe, 8 Mont 214 Nebraska Tessier v Crowley, 16 Neb 372; Ray v Mason, 6 Neb 102; America Credit Foncier v Rogers, 8 Neb 36; Aultman v Howe, 10 Neb 10; Olive v State, n Neb 321; Walker v Lutz, 14 Neb 274; Sides v Brend- linger, 14 Neb 491; Kyle v Chase, 14 Neb 530; Graves v Scoville, 17 Neb 593; Dorrington v Minnick, 15 Neb 397; Dolen v State, 15 Neb 405; Empkie v McLean, 15 Neb 629; The- sing v School DiSt No 57, 16 Neb 134; Frederick v Ballard, 16 Neb 560; Burke v Pepper, 29 Neb 321; McMurtry v State, 19 Neb 147; Bar- lass v Braash, 27 Neb 212; Hobbs v Hunt, 34 Neb 657; Hunter v Bell, 33 cedure, and, as appears from the host of citations, has been laid down in cases almost innumerable, yet there are certain well- founded exception S Thus, where by statute, or by order of court founded on statute, an affidavit in certain cases is made Neb 249; Wohlenberg v Melchert, 35 Neb 803; Maggard v Van Duyn, 36 Neb 862; Vineman v McCurtain, 33 Neb 643; McCarn v Cooley, 30 Neb 552; Payne v Jones, 33 Neb 260; Van Etten v Butt, 32 Neb 285;Strunk v State, 31 Neb 119; Vallindingham v Scott, 30 Neb 187; Olds Wagon Co v Benedict, 25 Neb 372; Fitz- gerald v Benadon, 35 Neb 317; Barton v McKay, 36 Neb 632; Van Etten v Kosters, 31 Neb 285; Neal v State, 32 Neb 120; Plattsmouth -v Boeck, 32 Neb 297; Clapp v Bow- man, 22 Neb 198 Nevad A State v McMahon, 17 Nev 365; State v Baker, 8 Nev 141 New York Taylor v Granite State Provident Asso C (Supreme Ct), 20 N Y Supp 135 North Carolina State v Jackson, 112 N Car 849 Ohio Schultz v State, 32 Ohio St 276 Orego N State v McGinnis, 17 Ore- gon 332 Tennessee Kincaid v Bradshaw, 6 Baxt (Tenn) 103; Neef v Chatta- Continuanc e Affidavits upon which a continuance of a cause is asked must be embodied in the bill, or the ruling thereon cannot be reviewe d Long v State, 46 Ind 582; Beard v State, 54 Ind 413 New Tria L Likewise the affidavits upon which a motion for new trial is base d Vanderkarr v State, 51 Ind 91; Whaley v Gleason, 40 Ind 405; Taulby v State, 38 Ind 437 Correction of Recor d Affidavits filed in opposition to a motion to correct the record of an inferior court must be brought up by bil L Kellenberger v Perrin, 46 Ind 282 On Motion to Open Judgment. Where a motion is made subsequent to final judgment entered by the clerk after default for want of appearance to open such default and to vacate such final judgment, the affidavits, etc, should be brought by a bill of ex- ception S Hellen v Steinwender, 28 Fla 191 Attachment. So affidavits on motion to discharge an Attachment Garner v White, 23 Ohio St 192; Olds Wagon nooga Gas Light Co, 9 Lea (Tenn) Co v Benedict, 25 Neb 372 Texa S Bruckmiller v Wolf, 37 Tex 342; Texas, etc, RCo v Hardin, 62 Tex 369; Campion v An- gier, 16 Tex 93; McMahan v Busby, 29 Tex 195 VirginiaGarland v Bugg, I He N M ( Va) 374- Awar d Soaffidavits usedtoimpeach an award of arbitrators must be em- bodied in a bill of exceptions or they are not examinabl e Sides v Brend- linger, 14 Neb 491 Affidavit of Claim S An order over- ruling a motion to strike an affidavit of claim from the file will not be re- Washingto N Windt v Banniza, 2 viewed unless the motion, affidavit, Wash 147 United State S Evans v Stettnisch, 149 U S 605; Stewart v Wyoming Cattle Ranche Co, 128 U S 383 Affidavits File d This is the rule although the affidavits have been filed with papers in the cas e Fox v Ter- ritory, 2 Wash Ter 297 Injunction Affidavit S Affidavits used exception, and ruling are made part of the record by bill of exception S Fonville v Sausser, 73 111 451; Van Cott v Sprague, 5 111 App 99 In Criminal Appea L In a criminal appeal an affidavit made before a justice of the peace alleging the crime committed, the writ issued thereon, and the mittimus directed on a motion for the issuance of a tern- to the sheriff form no part of the porary injunction must be include d Hart v Foley, 67 Iowa 407; Morgan - Twitty, 64 Ga 426 Amendment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Thiebaud v Tait (Ind, 1892) Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 3:18:36 +0000
So affidavits upon which a motion to amend is based is not in the record except by bill of ex- ception S Swan v Clark, 80 Ind 57; Lewis v Ewing, 70 Ind 282 record propeRHolton v State, 2 Fla 476 Verification of Pleadin g Of course where the affidavit is for the verifica- tion of a pleading, it becomes a part of the record without bill of excep- tion S Frederick v Ballard, 16 Neb 560 a part of the record proper, it need not be brought up by bill of exception S 1 6 Ruling S The rule already stated as to evidence, affidavits, and motions also applies to other rulings on matters of law made by the judge during the tria L In order to be reviewed they should be brought up to the appellate court by a proper bill of exception S 2 1 Where Part of the Record PropeRWhere affidavits are attached to a mo- tion, as a motion for new trial, which is itself a part of the record proper, they are included therein as an inher- ent part of the motio N Republican Valley RCo v Boyse, 14 Neb 130; Aultman v Howe, 10 Neb 10 See article NEW TRIA L Under Laws 1885-86, p 70, affidavits filed in support of motion for new trial are part of the record proper without bill of exception S Anderson v State, 2 Wash 183 As a Pleadin g And where the affi- davit stands in place of a pleading as an affidavit for an attachment it is properly included in the recor d Bud- dee v Spangler, 12 Colo216; State v Vanderbilt, 116 Ind' N In Oregon affidavits used on a motion for the issuance of a warrant to sheriff for the abatement of a private nuisance under Civ Code Oregon, 330, con- stitute a part of the record proper without a bil L Ankeny v Fairview Milling Co, 10 Oregon 390 In Iowa, under modern code prac- tice, a motion and affidavit filed in support thereof become part of the record proper without a bil L Code 3184; Affee v Higgins, 2 Greene (Iowa) 535; Cook v Steuben County Bank, I Greene (Iowa) 447; Bradley v, Jamison, 67 Ga oSiLemonds z/ French, 4 Greene (Iowa) 123; Mays v Deaver, I Iowa 216; Winet v Berryhill, 55 Iowa 411; Ellsworth v Moore, 5 Iowa 486; McGovern -v Keokuk Lumber Co, 61 Iowa 265 So similarly with a summons or other writ Before the code a bill was required to bring them u P Childs v Risk, MorR(Iowa) By Order of Trial Court. Where stat- utes allow affidavits to be made part of the record by order of the trial court they must specially refer to the affidavits designate d Thus an order that " the several affidavits herein filed in support of the motion heretofore filed for the purpose of setting aside the default hereinbefore taken against the plaintiff" be made part of the record held, too indefinit e Ohio Falls Car Co v Sweet, etc, Co, 7 Ind App 163 2 Tennessee Kelton v Bevins, Cooke (Tenn) 90^ United State S Hyde -v Booraem, 16 Pet (U S) 177 Indiana Indianapolis v Consum- ers' Gas Trust Co (Ind, 1895), 39 N e Rep 943 California Meeks v Kirby, 47Cal168; Norris v Norris (Ca L, 1891), 28 Pa C Rep 593; White v White, 88Cal429 Illinoi S Lusk v Parsons, 39 111 App 381; Gould v Howe, 127 111 251; Lawrence County Nat Bank v Le Moyne, 127 111 253 Interlocutory Order S So interlocu- tory and nonappealable orders cannot be reviewed on appeal unless brought up by the bil L Abbott v Douglass, 28Cal295; Feely v Shirley, 43Cal370; Dimick v Campbell, 31Cal238; More v Del Valle, 28Cal174; Mor- ris v Angle, 42Cal240; Harper v Minor, 27Cal107; Sutter v San Fran- cisco, 36Cal114; Wetherbee v Car- roll, 33Cal549; Graham v Linehan, i Idaho 780; Ainslie v Idaho World Printing Co, i Idaho 641; Dunbar v Hollinshead, 10 Wi S 506; Williams v Holmes, 7 Wi S 168; Sayre v Lang- ton, 7 Wi S 214; Cavenaugh v Titus, 5 Wi S 143 As the ruling of the court on a mo- tion to set aside a rule or plea d Clod- felter v Hulett, 92 Ind 426 Or re- fusing to require the plaintiff to give security for cost S Hartley S Hadley, 82 Ind 95 Or to review a motion for judgment for cost S Beard v Hand, 88 Ind 183 Or on a motion to tax cost S Leffel v Obenchain, 90 Ind 50; Gallimore v Blankenship, 99 Ind 390 Or an order denying a motion for judgment on the pleading S McAfee v Randall, 41Cal136 California Under the Code of Cali- fornia, an appeal from orders not 7 Motion for New Tria L The very general doctrine is that a motion for new trial, in order to be preserved for review on appeal, must be incorporated in the bill of exception S In certain juris- dictions, however, the motion for a new trial is by statute made a part of the record proper, or is regarded as a pleading, and need * not, therefore, be included in the bill of exception S See for a full discussion of this subject, article NEW TRIA L 8 Motion to Dismis S Ordinarily a motion to dismiss and the grounds upon which it is founded and the ruling thereon must be embodied in the bill of exceptions, or it cannot be re- viewe d 1 To Dismiss Appea L The same rule obtains on appeal from a de- cision of an intermediate appellate court on a motion to dismiss an appeal taken fheret O 2 9 Motions Affecting Pleading S Motions to strike out pleadings,* deemed excepted to a bill of exceptions must be signed and settled as provid- ed by the code, or on appeal from or- der setting aside a Default Grazidal v Bastanchure, 47Cal167 1 Ferrier v Deutchman, 51 Ind 23; Conoway v Weaver, I Ind 263; Aspinwall v Knox County, 18 Ind 372; Carr v Thomas, 34 Ind 292; Dritt v Dodds, 35 Ind 63; Scotten v Divilbiss, 60 Ind 37; Orr v Worden, 10 Ind 553; Burntrager v McDonald, 34 Ind 277; Alspaugh v Be N Frank- lin Draining Asso C, 51 Ind 271; Beard v State, 57 Ind 8; Meeker v Fountain County, 53 Ind 31; Ross v Misner, 3 Blackf (Ind) 362; Wilson v Truelock, 19 Ind 389; Smith v Smith, 15 Ind 315; Engard v Frazier, 7 Ind 154; Grant County v Small, 61 Ind 318; Treice v Holladay, 40 Mo App 575- When Part of Eecor d But where, as on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the defect is plainly ap- parent on the face of the record proper, no bill of exceptions is required to raise the questio N Doctor v Hart- man, 74 Ind 221; Hicks v State, 83 Ind 483; Evans v Schafer, 88 Ind 92; Louisville, etc, RCo v Head, 80 Ind 117; Gallimore v Dozey, 12 111 143; Conrad v Cole, 15 Wi S 545 2 Indiana Crumley v Hickman, 92 Ind 389; Burntrager v McDonald, 34 Ind 277; Meeker v Fountain County, 53 Ind 31; Scotten v Divil- biss, 60 Ind 37 Colorad O Rutter v Shumway, 1 6 Colo95 United State S Clinton v Missouri, etc, RCo, 122 U S 469 But the general rule is that where motions made in a cause are based on matters apparent on the face of the record proper, they are reviewable without a bill of exception S Midland RCo v Smith, 135 Ind 348; Fres- hour v Logansport, et C Turn- pike Co, 104 Ind 463; Doctor v Hart- man, 74 Ind 221; Redinbo v Fretz, 99 Ind 458; Bevin v Powell, n Mo App 221; Funkhouser v Mallen, 62 Mo 555; State v White, 61 Mo 441; Ancell v Cape Girardeau City, 48 Mo 80; State v Gilmore, no Mo i; Greene County v Wilhite, 35 Mo App 42; McNeil v Home In S Co, 30 Mo App 308; U S v Parrott, Mc- Al L (U S)27 I So where the motion is based on the ground that the intermediate court had no jurisdiction of the appea L Freshour v Logansport, etc, Turn- pike Co, 104 Ind 463 South Dakota Motion to dismiss an appeal is, under Dak Comp L, 5013, part of the record propeRPlunket v Evans, 2 S Dak 434 Motion in ArreSt So a motion in ar- rest of judgment is held a part of the record propeRState v Gilmore, no Mo i; Midland RCo v Smith, 135 Ind 348 Contra, Wiggins v Wither- ington, 96 Ala 535 3 Whitney v Teichfuss, n Colo355; Morris v Nugle, 42Cal236; De Pedrorena v Hotchkiss, 95Cal636; Nichols v State, 65 Ind 512; Merritt v Cobb, 17 Ind 314; Princeton School Town v Gebhart, 61 Ind 187; Berlin v Oglesbee, 65 Ind 308; Greens- burgh, etc, Turnpike Co v Sidener , 40 Ind 424 together with the rulings thereon * and the rejected pleadings, cannot be renewed unless incorporated in the bill, 58 or, where the Motion to Docket a Cross-complaint as a Separate Suit. Thiebaud v Tait (Ind, 1892), 31 N E Rep 1052 Motion to Make a Complaint more Specifi C Lake Erie, etc, RCo v Clark, 7 Ind App 155; Line v State, 131 Ind 468; Arnold v Arnold (Ind, 1895), 39 N E Rep 862 Motion to Strike out Paragraphs of an AnsweREvansville, etc, RCo v Maddux, 134 Ind 571 Motion to Quash an Indictment.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Thus an order dismissing Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 3:05:14 +0000
State v Henderson, 109 Mo 292 Motion to Set aside Rule to Plea d Clodfelter v Hulett, 92 Ind 426 Leave to Amen d So the action of the trial court refusing leave to amen d Pleasant Hill Bank v Wills, 79 Mo 275 Motion to Make Complaint more Spe- cific must be brought into the record by bill of exceptions or by special order of the court. Ohio, etc, RCo v McDanel d 5 Ind App 108 1 Cross-complaint. Thus an order dismissing a cross-complaint and di- recting a judgment for the plaintiff can- not be reviewed on appeal from the judgment without a bill of exceptions or the substitut e Stoddart v Burge, 53 Ca L 394; Douglas -v Dakin, 46Cal 2 Indiana Horn v Bray, 51 Ind 555; Fisherz' Ewing,3oIndi3o; Prince- ton School Town v Gebhart, 61 Ind 187; Myers v Conway, 62 Ind 474; St Louis, etc, RCo v Valirius, 56 Ind 511; Klingensmith v Reed, 31 Ind 389; Meyer v Yesser, 32 Ind 294; Indianapolis Piano Mfg Co v Indianapolis First Nat Bank, 33 Ind 302; Ward v Angevine, 46 Ind 415; Warner v Campbell, 39 Ind 409; Am- merman v Crosby, 26 Ind 451; Searl v Smith, 15 Ind 23; Saunders v Heaton, 12 Ind 20; Chrisman v Melne, 6 Ind 487; Henderson v Reed, i Blackf (Ind) 347; Hill v Jamieson, 16 Ind 125; Schmidt v Col- ley, 29 Ind 120; Stanton v State, 74 Ind 503; Berlin v Oglesbee, 65 Ind 308; Scott v Vermillion County, 101 Ind 42; Carrothers v Carrothers, 107 Ind 530; Stott v Smith, 70 Ind 298; Stanton v State, 74 Ind 503; Wilson v Piper, 77 Ind 437; Gregg v Louden, 51 Ind 585; Lynch v Jennings, 43 Ind 276; Pratt v Allen, 95 Ind 405; State v Krug, 82 Ind 60; Thomas v Hamilton, 71 Ind 277; Rhine v Mor- ris, 96 Ind 81; Manhattan L In S Co v Doll, 80 Ind 113; Mcllvain v Emery, 88 Ind 298 Missour I State v Marshall, 36 Mo 400; Cornell v Davis, 16 Wi S 686; Thompson v Backenstos, i Oregon 17; National Banking, etc, Co v Knaup, 55 Mo 154 West VirginiaKing v Burdett, 12 W Va 688 Illinoi S Smith v Wilson, 26 111 186; McDonald v Arnout, 14 111 58 Ohio Smucker v Wright, 3 Ohio CiRCt Rep 620 Arkansa S Fort v Hundley, 5 Ark, 179; Pelham v Page, 6 Ark 535 VirginiaFry v Leslie, 87 Va, Complaint.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Lyon v Miller, 24 Pa Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 2:45:33 +0000
On appeal from a ruling of a trial court in refusing to allow the defendant to file an answer to the complaint in an action before a justice of the peace the bill of exceptions must contain a copy not only of the answer offered, but also of the complaint. Miller v Seligman, 58 Ind 460 DemurreRWhere a demurrer to a complaint is sustained and an amended pleading filed, the original pleading; and demurrer are not in the record except by bil L Toledo, etc, RC O v Rogers, 48 Ind 427; McEwen v Hussey, 23 Ind 395; Holdridge z/, Sweet, 23 Ind 118; Shepard v Birth, 53 Ind 105 Abandoned Count S But where a plaintiff abandons part of the counts, of his declaration it ought to appear by entry of recor d It is not the office of a bill of exceptions to state such fact S State v Jennings, 10 Ark 428 Where Withdraw N Where an amended pleading is withdrawn by the plaintiff in error, his bill of excep- tions to the repetition of evidence of- fered under it is not a matter for con- sideration in the Supreme Court. Lyon v Miller, 24 Pa St 394 Papers not File d So also papers generally tendered in court, but not permitted to be filed, or those filed but afterwards stricken out as nullities, should be included in the bil L May- field v Sweringen, 4 Mo 220 Bill of Discover Y If the answer to a bill of discovery is offered in evidence it should be embodied in a bill of ex- statute so allows, as is the case in some jurisdictions, made part of the record proper by an order of the court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

State v Hall, 79 Iowa Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 2:33:08 +0000
1 10 Instruction S Unless a statute otherwise provides, a bill of exceptions is, except in certain jurisdictions pointed out in the notes, the sole mode by which the instructions of the trial court can be brought up before the appellate court for revie W 2 ception S Metcalf v Edmiston, 25 111 392 Plea in Abatement In Colorado pro- ceedings before a justice of the peace on a plea in abatement must be pre- served in a bill of exception S Craig v Smith, 10 Colo220 Where Bill of Exceptions not Require d In West Virginia, it has been held that where the bill of particulars shows the nature of the rejected plea the action of the court in rejecting it would be considered, although it was not made part of the recor d Baltimore, etc, RCo v Bitner, 15 W Va 455 In Kansas it is held that a motion to require a pleading to be made more definite and certain is a part of the record, and need not be embodied in the bill of exception S Leavenworth, etc, RCo v Douglas County, 18 Ka N 169 1 Elliott v Stone City Bank, 4 Ind App 155; McDonald v Geisendorff, '128 Ind 153; Ohio, etc, RCo v Mc- Daneld, 5 Ind App 108; Sweeney v BakeR13 W Va 160 Motion to Strike DemurreRA motion to strike from the files a demurrer is itself a part of the pleadings in a cause, constitutes a part of the record proper of the primary court, and is not review- able on bill of exception S Powell v, Henry, 96 Ala 412 2 Colorad O Kurtz v Simonton, I Colo70; McDonald v Clough, 10 Colo59; Banks v Hoyt, II Colo399; Witcher v Watkins, II Colo548; Brink v Posey, n Colo521 Indiana Ellebarger v Swiggett ,! Ind App 598; Steeg v Walls, 4 Ind App 18; Clanin v Fagan, 124 Ind 304; Childress v Callender, 108 Ind 395; Landwerten v Wheeler, 106 Ind 523 See Instructions Henley v Bron- nenberg (Ind, 1892), 31 N E Rep 583;Starnes v Schofield, 5 Ind App Iowa Garber v Morrison, 5 Iowa 476; Reed v Hubbard, r Greene (Iowa) 153; Jordan v Quick, n Iowa 9; State v Jones, n Iowa n; Har- mon v Chandler, 3 Iowa 150; Green v McFaddin, 5 Iowa 549; Lewis v May, 22 Iowa 599; Parker v Pierce, 4 Greene (Iowa) 452; Claussen v La Franz, i Iowa 226; Ewing v Scott, 2 Iowa 447; Pierce v Locke, n Iowa 454 For rule in Iowa under later practice, see note Iowa, infr A KentucKy Forest v Crenshaw, 81 Ky 51 Marylan d Sowerwein v Jones, 7 Gill J (Md) 335 Michiga N Wagar v Peak, 22 Mich 368 Mississipp I Haynie v State, 32 Mis S 403; Peden v State, 61 Mis S 267 A T evad A State v Ah Mook, 12 Nev 369; State v Forsha, 8 Nev 137- Ohio Toledo v Preston, 50 Ohio St 361 Pennsylvania Yardley v Cuthbert- son, 14 W N C (Pa) 29 Tennessee McGhee v Grady, 12 Lea (Tenn) 89; Bass v State, 6 Baxt (Tenn) 580; Hardwick v State, 6 Lea (Tenn) 229; Chesapeake, etc, RCo v Foster, 88 Tenn 671; Huddleston v State, 7 Baxt (Tenn) 55; Owens v State, 16 Lea (Tenn) I Texa S Texas Te L, etc, Co v Seiders (Tex Civ App, 1895), 298 W Rep 258; Gulf, etc, RCo v Holt, i Tex App Civ Ca S, 835 Ver Mont Fletcher v Howard, 2 Ai K ( Vt) 115 Wisconsi N Collins v Breen, 75 Wi S 606; Mullen v Reinig, 68 Wi S 408; Koenigs v Jung, 73 Wi S 178 Englan d Anderson v Fitzgerald, 4 H L Ca S 484; McAlpine v Mang- nall, 3 CB 496, 54 E C L 496 Where a statute requires instruc- tions to be filed with the clerk and entered in the court journal, they need not be brought up in the bil L Eaton v Carruth, u Neb 231 In Florida a charge to the jury can be made part of the record only by a bill of exceptions being signed, sealed, and filed by the trial judge ir accordance with the Act of March 2, 1877 Richardson v State, 28 Fla 11 Other Instance S Other instances of proceedings required or not required to be incorporated in a duly authenticated bill of exceptions, when their correctness is questioned, in order that they may be reviewed in the appellate court, are given in the note S 1 349; Parrish v Pensacola RCo, 28 Fla 252 In Iowa instructions given or re- fused are now, when filed, part of the record proper by statute, and the exceptions taken thereto, without a bill, Allison v Jack, 76 Iowa 205; Roberts v Leon Loan, etc Co, 63 Iowa 176; Parker v Middleton, 65 Iowa 200; Wells v Burlington, etc, RCo, 56 Iowa 520; Bonney v Cocke, 61 Iowa 303 In Texas no exceptions on bill there- of is necessary, as the statute (Rev StatTex art. 1318) provides that the charge is to be filed, "and shall constitute part of the record of the cause, and shall be regarded as ex- cepted to and subject to revision for error therein, without the necessity of taking any bill of exception S" See Redus v Burnett, 59 Tex 581 Indiana Where all the instructions are in the record, as provided by Rev StatInd 1881, 630, it is not necessary that the question of their propriety be presented by bill of exceptions, as provided by Rev StatInd 1881, 630, for the presenta- tion of reserved questions of la W Richardson v Coleman, 131 Ind 210 1 Verdi Ct The refusal of the trial judge to receive a verdi Ct Interna- tional, etc, RCo v Stewart, 57 Tex 166 Remarks of Judg e Improper re- marks of the judge during the progress of the cause, alleged to be prejudicial to the appellant. State v Hall, 79 Iowa 674 Remarks or Conduct of Attorne Y The improper demeanor or remarks of an attorney in argument to the jur Y Rayburn v Central Iowa RCo, 74 Iowa 637; Hallz Carter, 74 Iowa 364; Fowler v Strawberry Hill, 74 Iowa 644; Buscher v Scully, 107 Ind 246; Cottrell v Shadley, 77 Ind 348; Choen v State, 85 Ind 209; Rudolph v Landwerlen, 92 Ind 34; Forsythe v Kreuter, 100 Ind 27; Norton v St Louis, etc, RCo, 40 Mo App 642 See article ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, Vo L I I, p 757- Challenge to JuroRThe court's re- fusal to allow a peremptory challenge to a juror is not "an irregularity in the proceedings of the court," review- able on affidavits, but constitutes an " error of law occurring on the trial," and can be brought up only by a bill of exception S Silcox v Lang, 78Cal118 Findings of Court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

So the minutes Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 2:14:26 +0000
The failure of a trial court to file conclusions of fact and law can only be reviewed on a bill of exception S Landa v Heermann, 85 Tex i; Cotulla v Goggan, 77 Tex 35- But no bill of exceptions is neces- sary to make a court's finding of facts in a cause and statement of a conclu- sion of law, where reduced to writing and filed as part of the recor d But- ton v Ferguson, n Ind 314 Taxation of Cost S An order for taxation of costs cannot be reviewed unless written exceptions are filed thereto, and incorporated with the order in the bill of exception S Cord v Southwell, 15 Wi S 211 Verdict against the Weight of Evi- denc e A bill of exceptions is not the appropriate mode for raising the question as to whether the verdict is against the weight of evidenc e Co M v Morris, i Cus H (Mas S) 391; Bos- ton v Benson, 12 Cus H (Mas S) 61; Walker v Penniman, 8 Gray (Mas S) 233; Co M v Merrill, 14 Gray (Mas S) 415; Co M v Hughes, 2 Allen (Mas S) 518; Denny v Williams, 5 Allen (Mas S) i; Foot v Wiswall, 14 John S 304 This question must be raised by a motion to set aside the verdict for that cause and on appeal therefro M Co M v Gillon, 2 Allen (Mas S) 505; Co M v Hughes, 2 Allen (Mas S) 518; Co M v Morris, i Cus H (Mas S) 391 ; Walker v Penniman, 8 Gray (Mas S) 233 Question of Law Reserve d In Indiana when a question of law reserved is shown by the record proper no bill of exceptions is necessary as to that point. State r /Vanderbilt, 116 Ind N Bond S A bond in a replevin suit constitutes no part of the record unless made so by bill of excep- tion S Pirani v Barden, 5 Ark 89; Kibble v Butler, 14 Smed M (Mis S ) 208 V I WHERE BILL is NOT REQUIRED 1 Generall Y It is a gen- eral rule of appellate procedure that a bill of exceptions is use- less, and indeed none should be brought up to the appellate court, where all the facts constituting the alleged error appear on the face of the record propeRThe reason for this rule is ob- vious, since the only purpose of the bill is to bring before the court in an authenticated manner facts which in the ordinary course of proceeding would not otherwise appear of record in the cas e 1 See article APPEALS, Record on Appeal, Vo L I I, p 258 Nor for a bond for cost S Cox v Garvin, 6 Ark 431 Judge's Memorand A Memoranda of the judge must be embodied in the bil L Sawyers v Lathrap, 9 Ark 68; Berry v Singer, 10 Ark 489; Ashley v Stoddard, 26 Ark 654 Minutes of Court. So the minutes of the clerk or judge of court form no part of the record propeRMore v Del Valle, 28Cal174; Clarke v Kane, 37 Mo App 258; Dawley v Dovious, 23 Ca L 103; Harper v Minor, 27Cal107; Abbott v Douglass, 28Cal299; Men- docino'County v Morris, 32Cal145; People v Empire Gold, etc, Mi N Co, 33Cal171 Agreement to Fil e A written stipu- lation of attorneys in a cause extend- ing the time within which a bill of exceptions must be filed is, when filed, a part of the record propeRState v, Chamberlain, 74 Iowa 266 Rules of Court.

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