Ayres v. Armstrong
| Decision Date | 11 October 1895 |
| Docket Number | 17,538 |
| Citation | 41 N.E. 522,142 Ind. 263 |
| Parties | Ayres v. Armstrong et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Huntington Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
T. L. Lucas, for appellant.
J. Q. Cline and C. W. Watkins, for appellees.
This was an appeal from a survey of real estate. The cause was tried, the court found against appellant and, over a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment on the finding.
The only error assigned is that the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.
The correctness of the court's ruling on the motion for a new trial depends entirely upon the evidence. The motion for a new trial was overruled June 26, 1893, and ninety days given in which to file a bill of exceptions. A bill of exceptions, purporting to contain all the evidence given in the cause, was signed by the judge on the 24th of October, 1893, long after the expiration of the ninety days given. There is an indorsement on the bill of exceptions, signed by the judge, stating that the same was presented to him September 16, 1893; this, however, is no part of the record. Cornell v. Hallett, 140 Ind. 634, 40 N.E. 132, and cases cited. The statute expressly requires that the date of presentation be stated in the bill of exceptions, not on its back or margin. It has been uniformly held that when the date of presentation is not stated in the bill of exceptions, we must consider the date when the bill was signed as the date of its presentation. Cornell v. Hallett, supra, and cases cited. A bill of exceptions, even if presented and signed within the time given, is no part of the record until it is filed. Elliott App. Proced., section 805, and cases cited. Such filing must be after the bill is signed by the judge. Guirl v. Gillett, 124 Ind. 501, 24 N.E. 1036. The record does not show that the bill of exceptions was filed.
It is true that it is stated in the record that the bill of exceptions was filed September 28, 1893, but not being at that time signed by the judge, it was not a bill of exceptions, and did not thereby become a part of the record. Guirl v. Gillett, supra.
It is clear, for the reason stated, that what purports to be a bill of exceptions, is not part of the record. No question is therefore presented as to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bingle v. State
...etc., R. Co. v. Schmidt, 147 Ind. 638, 652, 46 N. E. 344;Makepeace v. Bronnenberg, 146 Ind. 243, 249, 45 N. E. 336;Ayres v. Armstrong, 142 Ind. 263, 264, 41 N. E. 522, and cases cited; Elliott's App. Proc. § 805-we hold that the evidence is not in the record. Judgment ...
-
Rhodehamel v. State
...be stated in the body of the bill, and not by an indorsement thereon. Hormann v. Hartmetz, 128 Ind. 353, 27 N. E. 731;Ayres v. Armstrong, 142 Ind. 263, 41 N. E. 522. [5] A statement in the bill as to the date of presenting it to the judge will control when there is a conflict between the st......
-
Ueker v. Bedford Bluestone Co.
...N. E. 169;Railway Co. v. O'Brien (at last term) 41 N. E. 528;Armstrong v. Dunn (Ind. Sup.) 41 N. E. 540;Ayers v. Armstrong (at last term) 41 N. E. 522;Drake v. State (last term) 41 N. E. 799;Wenning v. Teeple, 41 N. E. 600. The presumption is that the trial court was justified by the eviden......
-
Wenning v. Teeple
... ... the judge, is not a part of the record until it is filed ... Downey v. Head, 138 Ind. 503, 38 N.E. 169, ... and cases cited; Ayres v. Armstrong, 142 ... Ind. 263, 41 N.E. 522; Elliott App. Proceed., section 805, ... and cases cited. Under these authorities the evidence is not ... ...