Laws

Barber v Scott (Iowa, 1893) Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 6:44:22 +0000
Conrow -v Schloss, 55 Pa St 37, citing Bridge- man v Holt, Shaw p C 120 What Facts Reviewabl e The bill not only may, but must, be used to bring the facts into review so far as they bear upon questions of la W Parsons v Bedford, 3 Pet (U S)433 5 People v Doe, 45Cal43; Caul- fieid v Doe, 45Cal222; Wetherbee v II I SUBSTITUTED REMEDIE S Where statutes do not provide otherwise, a bill of exceptions is still the appropriate remedy in the courts of states following the common la W 2 Various sub- stitutes have been adopted in several states, as " Case Made," "Statement of Facts," and " Abstra Ct" 3 Carroll, 33Cal556; Dunbar v Hol- linshead, 10 Wi S 505; Bookwalter v Conrad, 14 Mont 63; Granite Mountain Mi N Co v Weinstein, 7 Mont 346; Barber S Briscoe, 8 Mont 214; Arnold v Sinclair, 12 Mont 260; Blue Bird Mi N Co v Murra Y 9 Mont 468 1 Weinrich v Porteus, 12 Nev 104; Wetherbee v Carroll, 33Cal549 California In California an order dismissing a motion for new trial can- not be reviewed on appeal, in the ab- sence of a statement of facts or bill of exceptions containing the papers upon which the order was made; they are not of themselves a part of the recor d Strathern v Dakin, 63Cal478; Abbott v Douglass, 28Cal295; Douglas v Dakin, 46Cal49 And orders not themselves appealable are reviewable only on appeal from the final judgment; they must be brought up by a bill of exceptions, Cleland v Walbridge, 78Cal359; Abbott v Douglass, 28Cal295; Douglas v Dakin, 46Cal49; or an order striking out an amended complaint, Cleland v Walbridge, 78Cal359 But an order striking out a motion for a new trial cannot be brought before the Supreme Court for review by a bill of exception S Quivey -v Gambert, 32 Ca L 304 South Dakota In South Dakota, un- der section 5217 Comp Laws, no bill of exceptions is required on appeal from orders made upon affidavits or other written evidenc e The clerk must certify and transmit to the Supreme Court the original papers used on the application, or copies where the court so order S Bailey v Scott, i S Dak Hearing on Original Papers Appeal from Justic e So where the appeal from a decision rendered in the court of a justice of the peace must be heard on the original papers and the return of the justice required by statute to contain all the material evidence and rulings of the justice, no bill of excep- tions is require d Townsend v Peas- ley, 35 Wi S 392; Pfeil v Harboldt, ii Wi S 9 2 Endicott, Petitioner, 24 Pic K (Mas S) 339; Courser v Vermont Cent RCo, 25 Vt 476; Wheeler v Winn, 53 Pa St 122; Co M v Arnold, 161 Pa St 320; Seibright v State, 2 W Va 591 3 Distinguished from Case Mad e A bill of exceptions should include only matters not embodied in the record proper, and it must ordinarily be re- duced to writing, allowed, signed, and filed at the term the decision com- plained of is mad e The object of a case made is to present to the appellate court, complete in itself, a statement of so much of the proceedings and evidence or other matters in the action as may be necessary to bring to the notice of the court the error com- plained of It must embrace and in- clude all that is necessary for a full understanding of the questions sub- mitted for decision, whether the ex- ceptions are entered on record or not. It may be signed, settled, and filed beyond the trial term and in vacation, upon the order and within the time allowed by the trial court or judg e Shumaker v O'Brien, 19 Ka N 476 See article CASE MAD e Distinguished from Statement of Fact S ' A bill of exceptions and statement of facts are alike intended to be incor- porated into and become parts of the record of the cas e Still they are altogether different in their character and purposes, as well as in the man- ner of their preparation and authen- ticatio N The first serves to perpetu- ate in the record the ruling of the court to which the party presenting the bill except S Only such facts are set out in it as are necessary for the proper understanding of the action of the court to which the exception is take N In its preparation and comple- tion theopposite partyhasno necessary connection, and is frequently not even cognizant of its contents until it has become a part of the recor d While the latter is intended to embody in the Iv NUMBER OF BILLS REQUIRED Generall Y Under the old prac- tice each exception taken on the trial was written out and authen- ticated as a separate instrument, 1 called a special bill of excep- tion S 2 This seems to be still allowable, 3 but under modern practice the mode generally adopted is to include all the excep- tions taken on the trial in one bill, called a general bil L 4 record all the evidence introduced on the trial, as agreed to by the parties and approved by the court; or if the parties fail to agree, as certified to by the court after examining the state- ments prepared by them respectivel Y" Roundtree v Galveston, 42 Tex 623 See article STATEMENT OF FACT S Abstra Ct Where the abstract of the appellant, either taken singly or coupled with that of the appellee, presents all the facts necessary for the decision of the points involved, a bill of exceptions is unnecessary; otherwise it is require d Barber v Scott (Iowa, 1893), 55 N W Rep 502; Starr v Burlington, 45 Iowa 87; Rich- ardson v Blinkiron, 76 Iowa 256; Con- ners v Burlington, etc, RCo, 74 Iowa 384 So where the appellee in his amended abstract sets out the evi- dence alleged to be omitted in the ap- pellant's abstract, his motion to strike out the bill because not filed in time will be overrule d Conners v Burling- ton, etc, RCo, 74 Iowa 383 But where the bill is not filed in time, and the parties disagree as to whether the abstracts present a trust- ful account of the evidence, the bill will be struck out. Barber v Scott (Iowa, 1893), 55 N W Rep 502 Statement of Fact S In the states where by statute a statement of facts may be presented by the appellant, it is not essential where all the evidence legally and conclusively appears by a bill of exception S Salinas v Wright, n Tex 572; Webb v Maxan, n Tex 678 Under the practice of Texas the statement of facts, where not inconsist- ent with the bill of exceptions, must be taken together as constituting one bil L Heffron v Pollard, 73 Tex 96 1 Packard v Spellings, 3 Colo, in; Ellicott v Martin, 6 Md 517; Pomeroy v State Bank, i Wal L (U S) 592; People v Blades, 10 111 App 19 See X 5 At the Trial, infr A 2 Myrick v Merritt, 22 Fla 335; Jackson v State, 56 Mis S 313 Effect of Special Bil L Where an ex- ception has been taken to a ruling or decision, and all the matters requisite to a review of such exception then and there reduced to writing, signed and filed, it becomes a special bill of exceptions on that point, and the fact that it is subsequently incorporated in a general bill which is stricken out does not affect its efficiency to present the point.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Where, however, an error Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 6:31:00 +0000
Myrick v Merritt, 22 Fla 3 Lindsey v Henderson, 27 Miss, 504; Doe v Gildart, 5 How (Mis S) 606 Marylan d Under Maryland prac- tice each distinct bill must be sepa- rately signed and sealed by the trial judg e Cooper v Holmes, 71 Md 20; Ellicott v Martin, 6 Md 509 The facts stated in one exception cannot be looked to in disposing of a question raised under another unless the two are connected by some apt referenc e Cooper v Holmes, 71 Md 20; Gist v Cockey, 7Har J (Md) 134 And see Hopkins v Kent, 17 Md 113; Baltimore, etc, RCo v State, 30 Md 54 4 Colorad O Packard v Spellings, 3 Coloi N Illinoi S People v Blades, 10 111 App 20 Indiana Mills v Buchanan, 36 Ind 490 Iowa Anderson v Ames, 6 Iowa 486 Mississipp I Lindsey v Henderson, 27 Mis S 504; Jackson v State, 56 Mis S 313 Missour I Lane v Kingsberry, n Mo 402 VirginiaBrown v Hall, 85 Va 146 United State S Lees v United States , 150 U S 476; Pomeroy's Lessee v Bank of Indiana, i Wal L (U S) 592; Chateaugay Iron Co, Petitioner, 128 U S 544- Each Exceptio N But each exception should, with the grounds upon which it rests, be stated separately therei N Doe v Peeples, I Ga i; Porche v Le Blanche, 12 La An N 778; Fields v* Where Several Bills Require d Practice allowing a general bill ex- tends only to exceptions taken during the trial of a cause or issue before the same jur Y 1 At Different Term S Where the proceedings in the case occur at two different terms, the proceedings of each term should be em- bodied in a separate bill of exceptions and filed as of the term to which it properly belong S 8 Cross-bil L Where an appellee desires to present questions not presented by the appellant's bill of exceptions, he must prepare and file a cross-bil L 3 Hunter, 8 Mo 128; Doe v Natchez In S Co, 8 Smed M (Mis S) 197; Morrissey v People, n Mich 327; Johnson v Jennings, 10 Gratt ( Va) I 1 Hurt v King, 24 Mo App 597 And not to all exceptions taken dur- ing the pendency or progress of a cause in court. Hurt v King, 24 Mo App 597; State v Ware, 69 Mo 333; Keen v Schnedler, 92 Mo 516 See X Time for Settlement and Signature, infr A So where a change of venue is or- dered, a bill of exceptions taken to the proceedings in the court to which the cause is removed does not bring up proceedings in the court from which the venue was change d Keen v Schnedler, 92 Mo 516 In Missouri the law only allows one bill of exceptions, which should be taken after a motion for new trial or other appropriate motion is overruled, stating the matters excepted to in the order in which they occurred at the tria L Dougherty v Whitehead, 31 Mo 256 2 Packard v Spellings, 3 Coloi N Where a cause is tried at one term, and taken under advisement and de- cided at a subsequent term, a bill of exceptions signed and filed at the latter term is insufficient to bring into the record an exception to the court's decision at the former term re- fusing leave to amend the complaint, and rulings excluding evidence, no time being given at such term to pre- pare and file a bill after the ter M In such case a bill filed on leave and within the time granted at the term when the case i$ decided brings into the record the evidence, but is not suf- ficient to save any exception taken at the prior ter M Cardwill v Gilmore, 86 Ind 428 Construction of Separate Bill S W T here separate bills of exceptions are taken each must be complete in itself The appellate court cannot refer to any subsequent bill to supply deficiencies in the first, Bell v State, 57 Md 115; Walsh v Gilmor, 3Har J (Md) 409; Cooke v Cooke, 29 Md 552; Gist v Cockey, 7Har J (Md) 134; Burtles v State, 4 Md 276; Arm- strong v Thurston, n Md 157; Hall v Hall, 12 W Va 2; unless con- nected by reference express or fairly implied, Cooke v Cooke, 29 Md 552; Cooper -v Holmes, 71 Md 20; Gist v Cockey, 7Har J (Md) 134; St Johnsbury v Waterford, 15 Vt 690 Further Exceptio N Except also when a bill of exceptions is taken after all the evidence has been submitted to the jury, and it purports to set out all the evidenc e It would seem that the evidence so set out may be re- ferred to in considering the question raised in another bill of exceptions taken in the progress of the tria L Hall -v Hall, 12 W Va 2; Brooke v Young, 3 Ran d ( Va) 106; Perkins v Hawkins, 9 Gratt ( Va) 651 Contra, Crawford v Jarrett, 2 Leigh ( Va) 639- To Affirm the Judgment. Where, however, an error of law sufficiently appears in one bill of exceptions to warrant reversal considered by itself, the appellate court may consider all the evidence in all the several bills to see whether the error is rendered harmles S Cooke v Cooke, 29 Md 538 ' In Indiana It has been held that where there are two bills of exceptions, in one of which objections are stated, but not in the other, one may be re- garded as a general bill and the other as a special bill, and the question re- garded as save d Kuhns v Gates, 92 Ind 69 3 Floyd v Chess-Carley Co , 76 Ga 752; Wingfield v Rhea, 77 Ga 84; v WHEEE BILL REQUIRED EXCLTTSIVENESS OF REMEDY 1 Ge N eral Rul e Where the bill of exceptions lies and no alternative mode is provided by statute, the remedy is exclusiv e 1 It is the sole means by which matters in pais are brought up before the appellate court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Where the judgment is affirmed Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 6:13:41 +0000
8 Singleton v Southwestern RCo, 70 Ga 464 Defendant's Exception S Plaintiff's exceptions have therefore no proper place in the defendant's bill of excep- tions, and where inserted should be stricken out on settlement. Blodgett v Utica, etc, RCo, 64 Barb ( N Y) 580 Motion for New Tria L Where a motion for new trial has been made on several grounds and was granted on one of them only, the others thereby being impliedly overruled, and excep- tion is taken to the grant of the mo- tion, it seems that a cross-bill of ex- ceptions must be filed to obtain a re- view of points raised on the overruled ground S Wingfield v Rhea, 77 Ga 84; Singleton v Southwestern RCo, 70 Ga 464; Georgia RCo v Letchworth, 73 Ga 88 See article NEW TRIA L On Affirmation of Judgment. Where the judgment is affirmed on appellant's exceptions, the questions considered by the cross-bill are unnecessary and will not be considere d It may or may not be dismissed, in the discretion of the court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Y (Tenn) 295 Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 6:03:34 +0000
Hill v Silvey, 81 Ga 514; Tucker v Ball, 68 Ga 814; Runnals z/ Aycock, 78 Ga 554 Otherwise where the judgment below is unreverse d Tucker v Ball, 68 Ga 814 Ti Me The appellee has no right to a cross-bill until the principal bill is signed, and where it is signed at or near the same date it is in ti Me Harris v Central RCo, 78 Ga 525 Certificatio N And of course it must be certified to with like completeness as the original bil L Bridges v Banks, 62 Ga 653 Assignment of Error S But either party may assign errors on the bill of exceptions taken by the otheRWill- iams v Bowdon, I Swan (Tenn) 282 See article ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS, Vo L I I, p 920 1 State S Larkin, uNev 314; State v Rigg, 10 Nev 284; State v Bohan, 19 Ka N 28; Scott v Spencer ( Neb, 1895), 62 N W Rep 313; Nelson v Johnson ( Neb, 1895), 62 N W Rep 244; Glass v Zutavern ( Neb, 1895), 61 N W Rep 579 In Lusk v Parsons, 39 111 App 380, it was said: " The bill of excep- tions, authenticated by the signature and seal of the presiding judge, is the only proper source to which we can resort for information concerning the actions and rulings of the court during the trial, the nature of the objections and exceptions thereto and the rea- sons given, if any, for such objec- tion S" See, to the same effect, Cline v Toledo, etc, RCo, 41 111 App 516; State v Weiskittle, 61 Md 51 No Substitut e Neither the affi- davits filed in a cause, the certificate of the clerk, nor the agreed statement as to what took place at a trial can be made to supply the place of a bill of exceptions required by statut e Young v State, 23 Ohio St 578; Jacksonville v Lawson, 16 Fla 321; Pine v Ander- son, 22 Fla 330; Price v Sanchez, 8 Fla 136 Massachusetts Case Reporte d In Massachusetts it is held that where by consent of parties a case is reported by a judge after verdict to the supreme judicialcourt, exceptions allowed there- in should not be stated in a separate bill of exceptions, but be incorporated in the report. Aldrich v Boston, etc, RCo, zooMas S 31 Washingto N Under Washington Code, 6, providing "in actions at law and in special proceedings which are appealable the appellant, instead of settling a statement of facts, as provided by this act, may have his exceptions and such facts as are material to the same made part of the record by bill of exceptions, as pro- vided by chapter 19 of the Code of Washington relating to exceptions " while either course may be adopted, the one chosen must be followed ex- clusivel Y Jones v Jenkins, 3 Wash 18 In Ohio, on error to the Superior Court of Cincinnati, a bill of evidence is held not equivalent to a bill of exception S Cook Carriage Co v Johnson, 23 Wkl Y L Bul L (Ohio) 2 Alabama Rives v M'Losky, 5 Stew p (Ala) 330; Weems v Weems, 69 Ala 105; Petty v Dill, 53 Certificate of Cler K Entry and certification by the trial clerk in Knight, 4 Mo 83; Richardson v Har- rison, 4 Mo 232; Withington v Young, 4 Mo 564; Searcy v Devine, 4 Mo 626; Hughes v Elliso N 5 Mo no; Pratt v Rogers, 5 Mo 51; Thompson v Child, 6 Mo 162; Gale v Pearson, 6 Mo 253; Magehan v Orme, 7 Mo 4; Shel- ton v Ford, 7 Mo 209; Benoist v Powell, 7 Mo 224 Montana Barber v Briscoe, 8 Mont 215; Noteware v Sterns, i Mont 314; Kleinschmidt v McAndrews, 4 Mont 27; Rooney v Tong, 4 Mont 597; Territory v Junks, 8 Mont 135; Territory v Bell, 5 Mont 562; State v Chandonette, 10 Mont 281 Nebraska Nebraska City v Baker, i Neb 180 Ohio Windhorst v Wilhelms, i Ohio CiRCt Rep 28; Lockhart v, Brown, 31 Ohio St 431; Pettitt v Van Fleet, 51 Ohio St 536; Ralston v Kohl, 30 Ohio St 92; Evans v Rey- nolds, 32 Ohio St 163; Goodin v State, 16 Ohio St 344; Sleet v Wil- liams, 21 Ohio St 82; Shinkle v Rip- ley First Nat Bank, 22 Ohio St 521; Young v State, 23 Ohio St 578; Jones v State, 20 Ohio 34; Newcomb v Cincinnati In S Co, 22 Ohio St 384 Pennsylvania Eakman v Sheaffer, 48 Pa St 176; Oakland RCo v Thomas, i Penn Y (Pa) 435; Fife v Co M, 29 Pa St 429 Tennessee Alexander v State, 3 Heis K (Tenn)475 Compare Wickham v State, 7 Cold W (Tenn) 525; State v Joseph ( La, 1893), 12 So Rep 934; Johnson S State, 26 N J L 313; Allen v State, Mart. Y (Tenn) 295; Boren v Cox, Peck (Tenn) 369 Texa S Hess v Dean, 66 Tex 664; McGehee v Lane, 34 Tex 390; Daugherty v Harris, 2 Tex Un Rep Ca S 458; Poe v State, 32 Tex 70; Wampler v State, 28 Tex App 352; Davis v State, 75 Tex 420 VirginiaMagarity v Shipman, 82 Va 806 West VirginiaDanks v Rode- heaver, 26 W Va 274 Wisconsi N Merwins v O'Day, 9 Wi S 158; Heald v Wells, 7 Wi S 149; Smith -v Lavin, 8 Wi S 265; Thomas v Savage, 8 Wi S 160; Weeks v School DiSt No 6, 8 Wi S 166; Johannes v Youngs, 42 Wi S 401 United State S Chambers County v Clews, 21 Wal L (U S) 321; Hanna v Maas, 122 U S 26; Struthers v Ala 641; Rolater v Rolater, 52 Ala i N California Harper v Minor, 27 Ca L 108 Florida Richardson v State, 28 Fla 349 Georgia Tarver v Rankin, 3 Ga 213 Illinoi S Clemson v Kruper, i 111 210 Indiana Evansville, etc, RCo v Frank, 3 Ind App 96; Pennsyl- vania Co v Niblack, 99 Ind 149; Quill v Gallivan, 108 Ind 235; Ex p Hayes, 88 Ind i; King v Marsh, 37 Ind 389; McEwen v Hussey, 23 Ind 395; Holdridge v Sweet, 23 Ind 118 Louisiana State v Judge, 40 La An N 809; Harrison v Waymouth, 3 Ro b ( La) 341; New Orleans Ex- change, etc, Co v Yorke, 4 La An N 138; Scott v Lawson, 10 La An N 547; D wight v Richard, 5 La An N 365; State v Drew, 32 La An N 1043; State v Comstock, 36 La An N 308; State v Jessie, 30 La An N 1170; State v An- derson, 42 La An N 590 Massachusett S Storer v White, 7 Mas S 448 Michiga N Peabody v McAvoy, 23 Mich 526; Monnier v Mizner, 17 Mich 271 Mississipp I Barfield v Impson, I Smed M (Mis S) 326; McKnight v Dozier, 44 Mis S 608; Hackler v Cabel, i Wal K (Mis S) 91 Missour I Butcher v Keil, i Mo 263; Davis v Hays, I Mo 271; State v Treace,66 Mo 124; State v Pollard, 14 Mo App 583; Perkins v Bakrow, 39 Mo App 332; Bevin v Powell, n Mo App 216; McNeil v Home In S Co, 30 Mo App 306; Puller v Thomas, 36 Mo App 105; Norton v St Louis, etc, RCo, 40 Mo App 642; Roeder v Studt, 12 Mo App 566; Skaggs v Given, 29 Mo App 612; State v Forsythe, 89 Mo 667; Gale v Pearson, 6 Mo 253; Crane v Taylor, 7 Mo 285; Brown v Brown, 7 Mo 288; Bernarder v Langham, 7 Mo 476; Martin v Hagan, 8 Mo 505; Hoyt v Williams, 41 Mo 270; Tower v Moore, 52 Mo 118; State v Musick, 101 Mo 260; Jones v Christian, 24 Mo App 540; Butcher v Keil, i Mo 262; Davis v Hays, i Mo 270; Alexander v Hayden, 2 Mo 211; Bartlett v Draper, 3 Mo 487; Foster v Nowlin, 4 Mo 18; Coleman v Mc- the record proper, of such matters, do not authenticate them or authorize their revie W 1 Certificate of Judg e Even a certificate by the trial judge that the record proper contains a correct bill of exceptions is insuffi- cient.

Autor of the post: Undefined

The embodiment of matters Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 5:44:29 +0000
2 2 Stipulation S It follows that parties cannot substitute a writ- ten stipulation or agreed statement of facts as to the proceedings on the trial in lieu of the formal bill required by statut e 3 Drexel, 122 U S 487; Kerr z/ Clampitt, 35 U S 188; Young v Martin, 8 Wal L (U S) 354; Suydam v Williamson, 20 Ho W (U S) 427; Williams v Norris, 12 Wheat. (U S) 117; Levering v Dayton, 4 Wash (U S) 698 Englan d Galvey v Baker, 5 C L f 157- 1 California Thompson v Lyon, 14Cal39; Gunter v Geary, iCal462; Pierce v Minturn, iCal471; De Johnson v Sepulbeda, 5Cal149 Georgia Hodges v Roberts, 79 Ga 212 Illinoi S Saunders v McCollins, 5 111 419; Corey v Russell, 8 111 366; Peacock v People, 83 111 331; Steffy v People, 130 111 98; Gould v Howe, 127 111 252; Martin v Foulke, 114 111 206; Graham v People, 115 111 566; Magill v Brown, 98 111 235; Gill v Skelton, 54 111 158; Hahn v St Clair Sav, etc, Co, 50 111 456; McLaugh- lin v Walsh, 4 111 185; Petty v Scott, 10 111 209; Moss v Flint, 13 111 572; City Cab Co v Taylor, 30 111 App 47 Indiana Sidener v Davis, 69 Ind 336; Lewis -v Goodman, 129 Ind 359 Missour I Kohn v Lucas, 17 Mo App 30; U S v Gamble, 10 Mo 459; Christy v Myers, 21 Mo 112; Blount v Zink, 55 Mo 455; Jefferson City v Opel, 67 Mo 394; Ober v Indianapo- lis, etc, RCo, 13 Mo App 84; Stur- divant v Watkins, 47 Mo 177 Mississipp I New Orleans, etc, RCo v Albritton, 38 Mis S 242; Whitfield v Westbrook, 40 Mis S 311; Porter v Porter, 41 Mis S 116; Moody v Nichol, 26 Mis S 109; Jamison v Moon, 43 Mis S 598; McKnight v Dozier, 44 Mis S 606; Vicksburg, etc, RCo v Ragsdale, 51 Mis S 447 By Order of Court. The embodiment of matters in pais in the record by or- der of court is not proper unless by statut e Dillard v Parker, 25 Ark 507; Berry z/Singer, IO Ark 491 .

Autor of the post: Undefined

White v Caldwell, 17 Mo Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 5:32:49 +0000
SV^article APPEALS, Record Proper, Vo L I I, p 260 Written Matter S So papers, docu- ments, etc, not intrinsically part of the record proper, cannot become so, where not brought up by a bill, by incorporation in the record propeRWike v Campbell, 5 Colo126; Fil- ley v Cody, 4 Colo542; Anderson v Sloan, i Colo33; Smith v Wilson, 26 111 187; Eggleston v Buck, 24 111 262; Douglass v Parker, 43 111 146; Wil- son v McDowell, 65 111 522; Mills v Simmonds, 10 Ind 464 Incorporation by Referenc e A stat- ute authorizing evidence attached to the bill to be incorporated by refer- ence only authorizes the judge, not the clerk, to make such reference, and the latter's references are of no effe Ct Sidener v Davis, 69 Ind 336; Kimball v Loomis, 62 Ind 201 ; Aurora f In S Co v Johnson, 46 Ind 315; Columbus, etc, RCo v Griffin, 45 Ind 369; State v Peru, etc, RCo, 44 Ind 351; Anderson v Lane, 32 Ind 102; Burdick v Hunt, 43 Ind 381; Kesler v Myers, 41 Ind 543; Cluck v State, 40 Ind 263; Stewart v Rankin, 39 Ind 161 Where a note by the clerk in- serted in the bill states that cer- tain marks against certain questions embodied in the deposition embraced in the bill meant depositions sup- pressed, and certain other marks those questions not, it cannot be used on appeal to guide the court in the in- terpretation of the instrument. Black v Daggy, 13 Ind 383 Motion to ArreSt Nor can errors arising on the trial proper to be raised by a bill of exceptions be brought up for review only by a motion in arrest of judgment. White v Caldwell, 17 Mo App 691 2 Pearce v Clements, 73 Ala 257; Alford v Eubank, 44 Ala 276 An order of the judge that matters properly included in the bill of excep- tions be made a part of the recrd proper is void, except where author- ized by statut e Wynne v Edwards, 7 Humph (Tenn) 418 3 Alabama Pearce v Clements, 3 Evidenc e The evidence introduced, or offered and rejected on the trial, can in general, in actions at law, only be brought be- fore the appellate court by bill of exceptions, 1 whether it be oral 73 Ala 257; Kirby v Vann, 51 Ala 221; Kerley v Vann, 52 Ala 7; Small v McCalley, 51 Ala 527; Clark v Mc- Crary, 80 Ala no; Southern Express Co v Black, 54 Ala 177 Arkansa S Ashley v Stoddard, 26 Ark 654; Lawson v Hayden, 13 Ark 316 Colorad O Filley v Cody, 4 Colo542 Florida Richardson v State, 28 Fla 350 Illinoi S Eureka Coal Co v Pow- ers, 10 111 App 61; Advance Elevator, etc, Co v Eddy, 16 111 App 263; Chi- cago, etc, RCo v Benham, 25 111 App 248 Indiana Citizens' In S Co v Har- ris, 108 Ind 392; Blackburn v Wag- ner, 83 Ind 325 Kansa S Hodgden v Ellsworth County, 10 Ka N 637; Cohen v Trow- bridge, 6 Ka N 385 Maine Coburn v Murray, 2 Me 336 Marylan d State v Weiskittle, 6l Md 48 Michiga N Wessels v Beeman, 66 Mich 343 Missour I Lamb v Brolaski, 38 Mo 51; Spencer v St Louis, etc, RCo, 79 Mo 500; Kennedy v Merry, n Mo 214 Montana Herman v Jeffries, 4 Mont 513 Nebraska Herbison v Taylor, 29 Neb 217 Tennessee Rhea v White, 3 Head (Tenn) 123 Washingto N Howard v Ross, 3 Wash 292 It is not material whether the agreed statement of facts is set out in the transcript or not.

Autor of the post: Undefined

21 S E Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 5:19:53 +0000
Pearce v Clements, 73 Ala 257 In Wisconsin papers may form a bill of exceptions by stipulation of attor- neys when ordered by the court to be made part of the recor d Houlehan z'. Rassler, 73 Wi S 559; Martin v Fox, etc, Im P Co, 19 Wi S 552 In Iowa an agreed written statement of facts in the cause, signed by both parties and duly filed, was held a part of tne record propeRBlack v Howell, 56 Iowa 630 In Ohio, however, it is held that when the record is made up at the beginning of the case by an agreed statement of facts, put in writing and filed as part of the record, no formal bill of exceptions is necessar Y Brown v Mott, 22 Ohio St 149 Admissions of Partie S So admissions of the parties made during the progress of the trial must be embodied in the bill, as it forms no part of the recor d Lindley v Atchison, etc, RCo, 47 Ka N 432 1 Colorad O Marshall Silver Mi N Co v Kirtley, 8 Colo No Florida Waddell v Cunningham, 27 Fla 477; Pine v Anderson, 22 Fla 330; Burk -v Clark, 8 Fla 9; McKay v Friebele, 8 Fla 21 Georgia Western Union Te L Co v Michelson ( Ga, 1894). 21 S E Rep 169; Hancock v Perkins, 68 Ga 830 Illinoi S McBain v Enloe, 13 111 76; Stack v People, 80 111 32; Eliza- bethtown v Lefler, 23 111 90; Tarble v People, in 111 120; Lee v Mound Station, 118 111 304; McLaughlin v Walsh, 4 111 185; Clifford v Drake, 14 111 App 75; Nason v Letz, 73 111 371; Earll v People, 73 111 329; Miller v Houcke, 4 111 501; Hays v Smith, 4 111 427; Russell v Whiteside, 5 111 7; Huftalin v Misner, 70 111 55; Prout v Grout, 72 111 456; Gebbie v Mooney, 121 111 258; Indianapolis, etc, RCo v Miller, 62 111 468; Krebaum v Cor- dell, 63 111 23; Bowman v Bowman, 64 111 75; Cunningham v Craig, 53 111 252; Wallahan v People, 40 111 104; Kitchell v Burgwin, 21 111 45- Indiana Fasnacht z/ German Liter- ary Asso C, 99 Ind 133; Smawley v Stark, 16 Ind 371; Tilman v Harter, 38 Ind i; Prilliman v Mendenhall, 120 Ind 279; Cole v Driskell, i Blackf (Ind) 17 Iowa Garber v Morrison, 5 Iowa 476; Jordan v Quick, n Iowa 9; State v Hessian, 58 Iowa 68; State v Hemrick, 62 Iowa 414 Kansa S Litsey v Moffett, 29 Ka N 507; McArthur v Mitchell, 7 Ka N 173; Kshinka v Cawker, 16 Ka N 63 KentucKy Vaughn v Mills, 18B Mo N (Ky) 633 Louisiana State v Nelson, 32 La An N 842; State v Ross, 32 La An N or writte N And the evidence can only be made a part of the record by the trial court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

Y (Tenn) 201 Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 5:08:44 +0000
The appellate court has no power to 854; State v Hudson, 32 La An N 1052 Mississipp I Rogers v McDaniel, 3 Ho W (Mis S) 172; Abbott v Hackman, 2 Smed M (Mis S) 510; Berry v Hale, i How (Mis S) 318; Windham v Williams, 27 Mis S 314; Mhoon v Col- ment, 51 Mis S 60 Missour I State v Ramsey, 82 Mo 133; Wood v Nortman, 85 Mo 298; Hoyt v Williams, 41 Mo 270 Montana State v Chandonette, 10 Mont 280; Daniels v Andes In S Co, 2 Mont 500; Helena First Nat Bank v Irvine, 2 Mont 554 Nebraska Joiner v Van Alstyne, 20 Neb 578 Nevad A State v Larkin, n Nev New York Berly v Taylor, 5 Hill ( N Y) 579; Powell v Waters, 8 Co W ( N Y) 682; Powell v Powell, 8 Co W ( N Y)755- Ohio Acheson v Sutliff, 18 Ohio 122; Challen v Cincinnati, 40 Ohio St 113; Cleveland, etc, RCo v Mc- Lean, i Ohio CiRCt Rep 112; Stege- man v Humbers, 2 Ohio CiRCt Rep 52; Miller v Simms, i Cin e SupeRCt Rep (Ohio) 485 Pennsylvania Williams v Elliott, 4 Penney (Pa) 430 Tennessee Perry v Pearson, I Humph (Tenn) 439; Spurlock v Fulks, i Swan (Tenn) 290; Gait v Dibrell, 10 Yerg (Tenn) 147; McCon- nell v Read, Mart. Y (Tenn) 224; Martin v Tennessee Bank, 2 Cold W (Tenn) 332; Williams v Duffy, 7 Humph (Tenn) 255; McKeel v Bass, 5 Cold W (Tenn) 151; Stewart v State, 7 Cold W (Tenn) 338; Cornelius v Merritt, 2 Head (Tenn) 100; Union Bank v Lowe, Meigs (Tenn) 229; Hays v Crawford, i Heis K (Tenn) 86; Brevard v Summar, 2 Heis K (Tenn) 103; Baker v McMinnville, 2 Heis K (Tenn) 117; Anderson v Walker, Mart. Y (Tenn) 201; Hud- dleston v State, 7 Baxt (Tenn) 56 Texa S Texas, etc, RCo v McAl- lister, 59 Tex 361 West VirginiaDanks v Rode- heaver, 26 W Va 282 United State S Norris v Jackson, 9 Wal L (U S) 125; Gulf, etc, RCo v Washington, 49 Fed Rep 347 Note of Evidenc e So under Louisi- ana practice a mention in a note of evidence that evidence was objected to, but without statement of the grounds, is not equivalent to the res- ervation of the bill of exception S State v Nelson, 32 La An N 842 Other Mean S The only other means, except where in equity the testimony is a matter of record, or where by statute it may be made part of the record by order of court, is by agree- ment of parties (see Stipulations, su- pra), by demurrer, by order, or by special verdict, Lennox v Pike, 2 Ark 14; Cole v Driskell, i Blackf (Ind) 16; Gist v Higgins, i Bib b (Ky) 304; or by a bill of exceptions, Maddox v Brown, 9 Port (Ala) 118; or by a statutory case state d See article AGREED CASE, Vo L I, p 384 Miller v Hershey, 59 Pa St 64 On Motion for New Tria L Newly discovered evidence contained in a motion for a new trial cannot be re- garded on appeal unless incorporated in a bill of exception S Nelson v Brixen, 7 Utah 454 See article NEW TRIA L In Chancery Caus e So where a bill of exceptions is appropriate by statute in a chancery cause, evidence alleged to have been erroneously excluded must be made part of the record by a bill of exception S Anderson v Middle, etc, RCo, 91 Tenn 44; Steele v Frierson, 85 Tenn 430; Aymett v Butler, 8 Lea (Tenn) 453 Where Apparent by Charg e But although the evidence is not brought up, if the charge is in the record, and it appear therefrom that certain evi- dence was before the court and certain issues of fact and law were tried, it may be considered whether the in- structions given related to the subject- matter of the suit, and the evidence thus shown to be before the court.

Autor of the post: Undefined

So the tran- script Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 4:56:39 +0000
Keitt v Spencer, 19 Fla 748 Reserved Questions of La W So where statutory reserved questions of law are allowed, the facts essential for their review can only be brought up by a bill of exception S Miller v Hershey, 59 Pa St 67; Wilson v Steamboat Tuscarora, 25 Pa St 317; Barwell v Wirth, 61 Pa St 133; Central Bank v Earley, 113 Pa St 480; Leach v Ans- bacher, 28 Le g Int (Pa) 277 Judgment Rol L Judgment rolls used make omitted evidence a part of the bill of exceptions or the record proper on the appea L It will not, therefore, grant an order requiring the clerk of the court below to insert such omit- ted evidence in the recor d 1 4 Motions Generall Y Motions of various kinds made during the progress of a cause, and the rulings of the court granting or denying them, must, in order to be reviewed on appeal, be taken up on a bill of exception S 2 See also article APPEALS, Vo L I I, p 272 as evidence must be brought up in the bil L Morris v Angle, 42Cal236 Exhibit S So the appropriate mode of showing that exhibits have not been proven is by a bill of exceptions incor- porating the M English v Roche, 6 Ind 62; Brown v Woodbury, 5 Ind 254; Haarstick v Shields, 8 Mo App 601 Memorandu M So also memoranda of motions made and overruled in the progress of the tria L Allen v State, Mart. Y (Tenn) 295 Accounts and Particular S And ac- counts and bills of particular S Cor- nelius v Merritt, 2 Head (Tenn) 100; Eggleston v Buck, 24 111 262 Instruments Sued o N Copies of in- struments sued on are not before the appellate court unless by bill of ex- ception S Garrity v Lozano, 83 111 597; Cook v Hughes, i Colo51; Mar- tin v Ehrenfels, 24 111 188; Franey v True, 26 111 184; Union Bank v Lowe, Meigs (Tenn) 229; McKeel v Bass, 5 Cold W (Tenn) 151 Insolvent's Schedul e And a schedule of an insolvent debtor, filed by him in conformity to an order discharging hi M Walker v Graham, 10 Yerg (Tenn) 233; Matthews v Weeden, 4 Yerg (Tenn) 166 Notice of Set-off So a notice of set- off does not constitute a part of the record proper, and any errors in the proof relating thereto must be duly presented by a bill of exception S Pledger v Glover, 2 Port (Ala) 174 Facts Claimed as WaiveRFacts oc- curring on the trial, alleged by the appellee as a waiver of the exceptions taken by the exceptant, should be em- bodied in the bill of exception S Jack- son v Tuttle, 7 Co W ( N Y) 365 Depositions must be brought up by bill of exception S McRaven v Mc- Guire, 9 Smed M (Mis S) 34 Statute S The statutes of other states cannot be considered unless em- braced in the bill of exception S Knapp v Abell, 10 Allen (Mas S) 485; Upham v Damon, 12 Allen (Mas S) 98; Kline v Baker, 99 Mas S 253; Haines v Hanrahan, 105 Mas S 480 Transcript of Judgment. So the tran- script of a judgment of a justice of a county, on which a scire facias for exe- cution is issued by a justice of another county, is no part of the record of suit by scire facias unless by bil L Robin- son v Tousey, 6 Blackf (Ind) 256 Interrogatorie S The rule applies to interrogatories to a party and a ruling on a motion to strike them out.

Autor of the post: Undefined

A motion to set aside Post Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 4:45:52 +0000
Stott v Smith, 70 Ind 298 Notice of OrdeRIn California it was held that where notice of an order overruling a demurrer must be given to the adverse party, the opposite party alleging that notice was not given must show it by the bill of ex- ception S Catanich v Hayes, 52Cal338 1 Saxon v State, 116 Ind 6 2 Alabama Wiggins v Withering- ton, 96 Ala 535; David v David, 66 Ala 140; James v Moseley, 47 Ala 301; Waring v Gilbert, 25 Ala 295; Lienkauff v Tuskaloosa Sale, etc, Co, 99 Ala 619; Tennessee, etc, RCo v East Alabama RCo, 81 Ala California Haraszthy v Horton, 46Cal546; Morris v Angle, 42Cal236; Nye v Marysville, etc, St RCo, 97Cal461; De Pedrorena v Hotchkiss, 95Cal636; Pico v Cohn, 78Cal384; Richardson v Eureka, 92 Ca L 64; Douglass v McFarland, 92 Ca L 656 Georgia Fleming v Bainbridge, 84 Ga 622 Illinoi S Burns v People, 126 111 284; McClurkin v Ewing, 42 111 283; Earll -v People, 73 111 329; Holmes v People, 10 111 478; Dickhut v Durrell, n 111 72; Parsons v Evans, 17 111 238; Snell v M E Church So C, 58 111 290; Harnes v Aufield, instances of Motion S As will be seen by the multitude of authorities cited in support of this general rule, the duty of a party complain- 79 111 257; Burns v People, 126 111 282; James v Dexter, 113 111 654; Van Cott v Sprague, 5 111 App 99; Schmidt v Skelly, 9 111 App 532; Saunders v Bernard, n 111 App 514; Duchardt v People, 12 111 App 299; Alley v Limbert, 35 111 App 592; Spangenberg -v Charles, 44 111 App 526; Brockenbrough v Dresser, 67 111 226; Van Pelt v Dunford, 58 111 145; Watts v McLean, 28 111 App 537; Foreman v Johnson, 37 111 App 452; Mullen v People, 138 111 606; Brom- well v Bromwell, 139 111 424; Hea- cock v Hosmer, 109 111 247; Schlump v Reidersdorf, 28 111 68; Bedee v People, 73 111 320; McElwee v Peo- ple, 77 111 494 Indiana Ross v Davis, 97 Ind 79; Cincinnati, etc, RCo v Lev- iston, 97 Ind 488; Aurora F In S Co v Johnson, 46 Ind 315; Taylor v Fletcher, 15 Ind 80; Indianapolis, etc, RCo v Wyatt, 16 Ind 204; Round v State, 14 Ind 493; Thompson v White, 18 Ind 373; Whiteside v Adams, 26 Ind 250; Smith v Smith, 77 Ind 80; Indianapolis, etc, Gravel Road Co v Christian, 93 Ind 360; Borchus v Huntington Bld g, etc, Asso C, 97 Ind 180; Arnold v Arnold (Ind, 1895), 39 N E Rep 863; Boil v Simms, 60 Ind 162; Myers v Con- way, 62 Ind 474; Knox County v Montgomery, 109 Ind 69; Nutting v Losance, 27 Ind 37; Klingler z/ Smith, 131 Ind 524; Collins v Cornwell, 131 Ind 20; Sidener v Davis, 87 Ind 342; Urton v Luckey, 17 Ind 213; Tilman v Harter, 38 Ind r; Holland v Hol- land, 131 Ind 196; Owens v Tague, 3 Ind App 245; Ohio, etc, RCo v Engrer, 4 Ind App 261 ; Line v State, 131 Ind 468; Sheeks v Fillion, 3 Ind App 262; Engard v Frazier, 7 Ind 154; Burntrager v McDonald, 34 Ind 277; Smith v Smith, 15 Ind 315; Ross v Misrier, 3 Blackf (Ind) 362; Han- cock v Fleming, 85 Ind 571; Lippman v South Bend, 84 Ind 276; Balue v Richardson, 124 Ind 480; Jarvis v, Banta, 83 Ind 528; Thomas v Griffin, i Ind App 459; Kiley v Murphy, 7 Ind App 239; Louisville, etc, RCo v Shanks, 132 Ind 395; Lake Erie, etc, RCo v Clark, 7 Ind App 155; Ohio, etc, RCo v McDaneld, 5 Ind App 108; Evansville, etc, RCo v Maddux, 134 Ind 571; Toledo, etc, RCo v Mylott, 6 Ind App 438; Scotten v Divilbiss, 60 Ind 37; Long v Brookston, 79 Ind 183; Washing- ton Ice Co v Lay, 103 Ind 48; Mer- ritt v Cobb, 17 Ind 314; Ferrier v Deutchman, 51 Ind 21; Orr v Wor- den, 10 Ind 553; Kirby v Cannon, 9 Ind 371; Princeton School Town v, Gebhart, 61 Ind 187; Greensburgh, etc, Turnpike Co v Sidener, 40 Ind 424; Allen v Berndt, 133 Ind 355; Union Cent L In S Co v Huyck, 5 Ind App 474; Thiebaud v Tait (Ind, 1892), 31 N E Rep 1052; Merrill v Shirk, 128 Ind 503; Smith v Mc- Donald, 3 Ind App 49; Kennedy v Shaw, 38 Ind 474; Hill v Jamieson, 16 Ind 125; Herrin v Olvey, 42 Ind 573; Lammers v Balfe, 41 Ind 218; Baker v Simmons, 40 Ind 442; Mc- Donald v Geisendorff, 128 Ind 153; Balue v Richardson, 124 Ind 480; Rhine v Morris, 96 Ind 81; Clodfelter v Hulett, 92 Ind 426; Boyle v Gra- ham, 91 Ind 420; Mcllvain v Emery, 88 Ind 298; Manhattan L In S Co v Doll, 80 Ind 113; State v Krug, 82 Ind 58; Stanton v State, 74 Ind 503; Wilson v Piper, 77 Ind 437; Nichols v State, 65 Ind 512; Princeton School Town v Gebhart, 61 Ind 187; Myers v Conway, 62 Ind 474; Lynch v Jen- nings, 43 Ind 276; Thomas v Griffin, I Ind App 457; Sites v Miller, 120 Ind 19; Washington Ice Co^ v Lay, 103 Ind 48; Crumley v Hickman, 92 Ind 388; Yost v Conroy, 92 Ind 464; Wilson v Piper, 77 Ind 437; Grant County v Small, 61 Ind 318; Long v Brookston, 79 Ind 183; Hicks v State, 83 Ind 483; Evans v Schafer, 88 Ind 92; Louisville, etc, RCo v Head, 80 Ind 117; Ferrier v Deutchman, 51 Ind 21; Dritt v Dodds, 35 Ind 63; Aspinwall v Knox County, 18 Ind 372; Conoway v Weaver, I Ind 263; Carr v, Thomas, 34 Ind 292; Indiana Racing Asso C v Allen (Ind, 1895), 39 N E Rep 669 Kansa S White v Douglas, 51 Ka N 402 Louisiana Wooldridge z Rickert, 33 La An N 234; Berger v Spald- ing, 13 La An N 580; Murphy v Simonds, 14 La An N 322; Dwight v Richard, 5 La An N 366; Grain v Kane, 5 La An N 659 Missour I State v Gee, 79 Mo 313; State v Fortune, 10 Mo 466; State v ing that a motion of his was denied on the trial, or the motion of an adverse party granted, to take such a bill of exceptions as will show what was proposed to be done and what the judge refused or permitted, has been widely applie d Thus it has been applied to a motion to strike out interrogatories, 1 for a continuance, 2 for costs, 3 for leave to file a new affidavit, 4 to quash an execution, 5 Batchelor, 15 Mo 207; State v Wall, 15 Mo 208; Monroe City Bank v Finks, 40 Mo App 367; Butcher v Kiel, i Mo 262; St Louis v Milligan, 18 Mo 181; Christy v Myers, 21 Mo 112; Kohn v Lucas, 17 Mo App 29; Rob- inson v Suter, 15 Mo App 599; Ober v Indianapolis, etc, RCo, 13 Mo App 81; North America Bank v Fletcher, 15 Mo App 272; Pratt v Rogers, 5 Mo 51; State v Ware, 69 Mo 333; Peacher v Patrick, 53 Mo 251; U S v Gamble, 10 Mo 457; State v Griffin, 98 Mo 674; State v Shehane, 25 Mo 565; Baker v Loring, 65 Mo 527; Stevenson v Saline County, 65 Mo 425; Sturdivandt v Watkins, 47 Mo 177; State v Treace, 66 Mo 124; Blount v Zink, 55 Mo 455; State v Marshall, 36 Mo 400; Tower z Moore, 52 Mo 118; State v Dunn, 73 Mo 586; McCarthy v McGinnis, 76 Mo 344; State v Burckhartt, 83 Mo 430; State v Henderson, 109 Mo 292; Arnold v Boyer, 108 Mo 310; State v Gilmore, no Mo i; Loudon v King, 22 Mo 337; Corby v Tracy, 62 Mo 515; Mc- Carthy v McGinnis, 76 Mo 345; Col- lins v Barding, 65 Mo 496; Merchants' In S C Q v Hill, 12 Mo App 149; Demske v Hunter, 23 Mo App 466; Rotchford v Creamer, 65 Mo 48; Jefferson City v Opel, 67 Mo 394; State v McCray, 74 Mo 303; State v Robinson, 79 Mo 66; Treice v Holla- day, 40 Mo App 575; Perkins v Bak- row, 39 Mo App 331; State v Har- vey, 105 Mo 316; Webster v Spindler, 36 Mo App 355 Montana Sherman v Higgins, 7 Mont 479; Barber v Briscoe, 8 Mont 215; Kleinschmidt v McAndrews, 4 Mont 224; Arnold v Sinclair, n Mont 556 Nevad A State v Wallin, 6 Nev 280 Oklahom A Swope v Smith, I Ok La 283; Fisher v U S, i Ok La 252 Texa S Stark v Miller, 63 Tex 164; Eastham v Sallis, 60 Tex 576; Swear- ingen v Wilson, 2 Tex Civ App 157; Whittaker v Gee, 63 Tex 435 Utah Perego v Dodge, 9 Utah3 Wisconsi N Cavenaugh v Titus, 5 Wi S 143; Kneifle v State, 13 Wi S 369; Peltin v Blooming Grove, 3 Wi S 310; Williams v Holmes, 7 Wi S 168; Thomas v Savage, 8 Wi S 160; Dem- ming v Weston, 15 Wi S 236; Cornell v Davis, 16 Wi S 686 1 Stott v Smith, 70 Ind 298; Bor- chus v Huntington Bld g, etc, As- so C, 97 Ind 180 2 Continuanc e A motion for con- tinuance must be brought up by bill of exceptions, or it will not be reviewe d Parker v McKelvain, 17 Tex 159; Harrison v Cotton, 25 Tex 53; Rob- son v Jones, 33 Tex 327; Bruckmiller v Wolf, 37 Tex 342; Jones v State, 40 Tex 188; Morris v Files, 40 Tex 374; Davis v Calhoun, 41 Tex 555; Contreras v Haynes, 61 Tex 104; Philipowski v Spencer, 63 Tex 605; Texas, etc, RCo v Mallon, 65 Tex 116; Waites v Osborne, 66 Tex 649; Arnold v Hockney, 51 Tex 48; Mere- dith v State, 40 Tex 482; Campion v Angier, 16 Tex 93; Spear v State, 16 Tex App 98; Stark v Ellis, 69 Tex 543; Texas, etc, RCo v Dunn (Tex, 1891), 17 S W Rep 822; Lewis v State (Tex Cri M App, 1895), 298 W Rep 778; Colee v State, 75 Ind 511; Beard v State, 54 Ind 413; Long v State, 46 Ind 582 3 Cost S Motion to compel a party to give security for costs, Hadley v Hadley, 82 Ind 95; or a motion that a judgment be rendered for costs, is properly included in the bill, Leffel v Obenchain, 90 Ind 50; Beard v Hand, 88 Ind 183; Nutting v Losance, 27 Ind 37 The proper mode of bringing up taxation of costs for review is by a motion to retax, an exception thereto, and a bill of exceptions embracing the motion and the evidence upon which it is base d Muir ^.Meredith, 82Cal20 4 A motion for leave to file a new affidavit must be brought up by bil L State v McKee, 109 Md 497 5 Corby v Tracy, 62 Mo 511; State v Wall, 15 Mo 208; Loudon v King, 22 Mo 336; Blount v Zink, 55 Mo 455- to suppress a deposition, 1 to vacate a judgment and affidavits,* for a nonsuit, 3 to reform a judgment, 4 for a jury trial, 5 to quash a forthcoming bond, 6 for change of venue, 7 to discharge a defendant from custody, 8 to discharge a receiver, 9 to remove the cause to the federal court, 10 for execution, 11 to exclude at- torneys from participation in a case, 12 and in numerous other instances particularized in the note S 13 1 Motions to suppress depositions must be so incorporated in the bil L Craig v Young, 2 Colo112; Smith v Kyler, 74 Ind 575 2 Anderson v Sloan, I Colo33 To Set Aside Judgment. A motion to set aside a judgment, Chouteau v Nuckols, 33 Mo 148; or a motion that judgment by default be rendered, Mechanics' Bank v Klein, 33 Mo 559 3 Nonsuit.

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