Brennan-Love Co. v. McIntosh
| Decision Date | 23 September 1898 |
| Citation | 56 Neb. 140,76 N.W. 461 |
| Parties | BRENNAN-LOVE CO. v. MCINTOSH. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. In settling a bill of exceptions it is not sufficient that a paper containing suggestions of amendments be attached, and that it be disclosed that such amendments were allowed. Amendments which are allowed should be actually made in the body of the bill.
2. A district judge has authority, after the expiration of the time for settling a bill of exceptions, to make corrections therein, if it be found not to disclose what it was intended to at the time of settlement.
3. If it be disclosed, after the bill reaches this court, that it does not disclose what the trial judge intended at the time of settlement, it will be remanded to the district court for correction under his supervision.
Error to district court, Douglas county; Dickinson, Judge.
Action by James H. McIntosh against the Brennan-Love Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Record returned, with directions.Meikle & Gaines, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. A. Goss and James H. McIntosh, for defendant in error.
In this case the defendant in error moved in the district court, after the bill of exceptions had been settled, that the certificate thereto be canceled, and the bill quashed. The motion was overruled, and the defendant has filed here a supplemental transcript embodying the proceedings, and seeks a review of the action of the district court on the motion. The record discloses that the plaintiff in error, the defendant in the district court, within the time limited tendered to defendant in error a proposed bill of exceptions. The defendant in error returned it, proposing eight amendments. Of these, seven related to more or less formal changes in the transcript of the oral testimony. The remaining one suggested that a copy of a telegram in evidence was incomplete, in that it disclosed the message alone, and did not show the check marks, whereby the time and manner of transmission are indicated. Plaintiff in error wrote on the paper proposing the amendments, “The amendments hereby proposed are accepted by defendant;” with the paper attached to the bill presented it to the trial judge, who settled the bill in that condition, the amendments not being in fact made. The motion to quash the bill was founded on the failure to incorporate the amendments, it being claimed that, unless the amendments be in fact made, there is no authority to settle the bill without notice. On the hearing of the motion the court ordered the plaintiff in error to attach to the bill a true copy of the telegram, or the original thereof, and, the latter having been done, overruled the motion, on the theory that the remaining amendments were sufficiently disclosed by the suggestions thereof. It is quite correctly contended by defendant in error that amendments are...
To continue reading
Request your trial