Brennan-Love Company v. McIntosh
| Decision Date | 23 September 1898 |
| Docket Number | 9791 |
| Parties | BRENNAN-LOVE COMPANY v. JAMES H. MCINTOSH |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
PROCEEDING to review an order of the district court of Douglas county overruling a motion to quash the bill of exceptions. Heard below before DICKINSON, J. Remanded for amendments.
Affirmed.
Meikle & Gaines, for plaintiff in error.
Charles A. Goss and James H. McIntosh, contra.
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 cancelled 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," and, 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 not properly made by a separate paper suggesting and allowing them. They should be incorporated into the bill before it is settled. This court will not look to several papers to find what the bill was intended to be. On one occasion at least this court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial