Board of Commissioners of Natrona County v. Shaffner

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the CourtPOTTER, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Citation68 P. 14,10 Wyo. 181
Decision Date19 March 1902
PartiesBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF NATRONA COUNTY v. SHAFFNER

68 P. 14

10 Wyo. 181

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF NATRONA COUNTY
v.

SHAFFNER

Supreme Court of Wyoming

March 19, 1902


ERROR to the District Court, Natrona County, HON. CHARLES W. BRAMEL, Judge.

On motions to dismiss and quash bill of exceptions. The facts material to the motions are stated in the opinion. The motions were denied. But it was suggested that if the petition in error should not be amended within the time allowed therefor, it would be dismissed for insufficiency.

Motion to dismiss denied.

Allen G. Fisher, for defendant in error, contended, on behalf of the motions, that the record should show facts sufficient to disclose where and when the court was held, the term, name of the judge and other officers present, so that the Appellate Court may know that the proceedings were had before a court; and cited the following authorities: McDonald v. Peniston, 1 Neb., 324; Orr v. Orr, 2 Neb., 170; 20 Ency. L., 1st Ed., 476; Sayles v. Briggs, 4 Metc., 421; Stubbs v. State, 49 Miss. 761; Lawrence v. Fast, 20 Ill. 338; Planing Mill L. Co. v. Chicago, 56 Ill. 304; McKinney v. People, 7 Ill., 552; People v. Bennet, 37 N.Y. 117; Com. v. Hogan, 113 Mass. 7; Bob v. State, 7 Humph., 129; Skinner v. Beshoar, 2 Colo., 383; Stubbins v. Evanston, 156 Ill. 338; Keller v. Brickey, 33 Ill. 496; Burlington Un. v. Stewart, 12 Ia. 442; Howell v. Ray, 83 N. C., 558; High v. Carlott, &c., R. Co., 112 N. C., 385; Baisley v. Baisley, 15 Or. 183.

No brief contra.

POTTER, CHIEF JUSTICE. CORN, J., and KNIGHT, J., concur.

OPINION [68 P. 15]

[10 Wyo. 183] POTTER, CHIEF JUSTICE.

The defendant in error moves to quash the bill of exceptions in this case, and also to dismiss the proceedings in error. The two motions were heard at the same time.

The motion to quash the bill might be granted without material prejudice to the case, as there would seem to be no purpose to be subserved by such a document in this case, and [10 Wyo. 184] the bill in question contains nothing but a recital of the various proceedings in the cause, all of which are shown by the record proper. It states that a motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and an exception reserved to the ruling; but the motion itself is not incorporated in the bill.

A demurrer to the petition on three grounds, viz., that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; that several causes of action are improperly joined, and that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, was overruled, and that ruling was excepted to. Afterward the defendant answered, and plaintiff filed a reply. The cause was thereupon submitted for final judgment, by stipulation of the parties, upon the petition, answer and reply; and upon those pleadings the action was determined by the rendition of the judgment now sought to be reviewed. No evidence was offered; and it is apparent that no issue of fact could have been presented under the stipulation submitting the case. The only facts which the court could possibly consider were those admitted by the pleadings, either expressly or because not denied. Under these circumstances it would seem that a bill of [68 P. 16] exceptions was not necessary to preserve any exception, or to make anything a matter of record not already a part of it, unless, possibly, the written stipulation submitting the cause; but that was not embodied in the bill. However, the judgment entry itself records the fact of such stipulated submission. Of course, if the motion for new trial was required, as a condition precedent to review in this court, it, and the exception based upon the order overruling it, could only be preserved by bill; but it is not conceived that such a motion was essential, since the trial did not involve the examination or determination of any issue of fact. (See R. S., Sec. 3746; Seibel v. Bath, 5 Wyo. 409, 40 P. 756.)

The absence of any necessity for a bill is not, however, the ground of the motion to quash. We think there is no merit in the grounds stated in the motion. One ground is that no motion for a new trial is incorporated in the bill. That fact does not constitute a good ground for quashing a bill, where [10 Wyo. 185] such a motion is not required. Another objection urged against the bill is that its recitals are not true. Such an objection is not maintainable in this court, since a bill is to be settled in the trial court and not here. The main contention, probably, is that the bill is not properly certified, or shown to have been filed in the District Court. This objection is doubtless urged because of the failure of the District Clerk to sign the filing endorsement upon the back of the bill. The endorsement is stamped upon the back, indicating its filing February 2, 1901, but the clerk's signature is lacking. However, a certificate attached to the original papers, which are sent up pursuant to the act of 1901 (S. L., 1901, Ch. 3, Sec. 1; Supreme Court Rules 11 and 12), states that the papers "are all the papers filed in this court in the case wherein Edgar B. Shaffner is plaintiff and the Board of Commissioners, Natrona County, Wyoming, is defendant, and are named as follows," and following that statement is a list of the papers, including the "bill of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark, 1994
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 23, 1937
    ...16 Wyo. 363, 94 P. 448), but think the petition is defective in failing to state the date of the judgment. See Commissioners v. Shaffner, 10 Wyo. 181, 189, 68 P. 14, Riordan v. Horton, supra. [52 Wyo. 281] The statute (89-4805, R. S. 1931) by a provision which became a part of it by an amen......
  • Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co., 789
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 12, 1915
    ...Siehl v. Bath, 5 Wyo. 409; Rubel v. Willey, 5 Wyo. 427; Boulter v. State, 6 Wyo. 66; Groves v. Groves, 9 Wyo. 173; Comms. v. Shaffner, 10 Wyo. 181; Freeburgh v. Lamoureux, 12 Wyo. 41, 13 Wyo. 454; Wallace v. Skinner, 15 Wyo. 233; Burns v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 14 Wyo. 498.) Exceptions to a ......
  • Fryer v. Campbell, 1832
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 16, 1934
    ...A petition in error which does not describe the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, is defective. Board of Commissioners v. Shaffner, 10 Wyo. 181; Fitzpatrick v. Rogan, 27 Wyo. 388. Where the petition fails to set out the judgment or record of any case, it must be dismissed. Higgins v.......
  • North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 967
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 10, 1921
    ...70 N.E. 900; Riordan v. Horton, 16 Wyo. 363; 94 P. 448; Redmond v. U. P. R. R. Co., 3 Wyo. 678; 27 P. 880; Board Commrs. v. Shaffner, 10 Wyo. 181; 68 P. 14; Ross v. Willett, 54 Ohio St. Rep. 150; Bantz v. Roder, 14 Ohio Rep. 218.) Civil procedure as to sufficiency and amendment of pleadings......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark, 1994
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 23, 1937
    ...16 Wyo. 363, 94 P. 448), but think the petition is defective in failing to state the date of the judgment. See Commissioners v. Shaffner, 10 Wyo. 181, 189, 68 P. 14, Riordan v. Horton, supra. [52 Wyo. 281] The statute (89-4805, R. S. 1931) by a provision which became a part of it by an amen......
  • Jones v. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co., 789
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 12, 1915
    ...Siehl v. Bath, 5 Wyo. 409; Rubel v. Willey, 5 Wyo. 427; Boulter v. State, 6 Wyo. 66; Groves v. Groves, 9 Wyo. 173; Comms. v. Shaffner, 10 Wyo. 181; Freeburgh v. Lamoureux, 12 Wyo. 41, 13 Wyo. 454; Wallace v. Skinner, 15 Wyo. 233; Burns v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 14 Wyo. 498.) Exceptions to a ......
  • Fryer v. Campbell, 1832
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 16, 1934
    ...A petition in error which does not describe the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, is defective. Board of Commissioners v. Shaffner, 10 Wyo. 181; Fitzpatrick v. Rogan, 27 Wyo. 388. Where the petition fails to set out the judgment or record of any case, it must be dismissed. Higgins v.......
  • North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 967
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 10, 1921
    ...70 N.E. 900; Riordan v. Horton, 16 Wyo. 363; 94 P. 448; Redmond v. U. P. R. R. Co., 3 Wyo. 678; 27 P. 880; Board Commrs. v. Shaffner, 10 Wyo. 181; 68 P. 14; Ross v. Willett, 54 Ohio St. Rep. 150; Bantz v. Roder, 14 Ohio Rep. 218.) Civil procedure as to sufficiency and amendment of pleadings......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT