Coal & Coke Ry. Co v. Joyce

Decision Date15 December 1905
Citation58 W.Va. 544,52 S.E. 498
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesCOAL & COKE RY. CO. v. JOYCE et al.

Exceptions, Bill or—Sufficiency.

The skeleton bill of exceptions relied on in this case for the purpose of making the evidence a part of it does not do so, and the evidence is not a part of the record, under the authority of the cases of Parr v. Currence, 52 S. E. 496, 58 W. Va. ——, Dudley v. Barrett et al., 52 S. E. 100, 58 W. Va.——, Tracy's Adm'x v. Coal Co. (W. Va.) 50 S. E. 825. and McKendree v. Shelton, 41 S. E. 909, 51 W. Va. 516.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Randolph County.

Action by the Coal & Coke Railway Company against Thomas W. Joyce and others. Judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error. Affirmed.

W. B. Maxwell, for plaintiffs in error.

C. W. Dailey and E. D. Talbott, for defendant in error.

COX, J. Thomas W. Joyce, Margaret Caveney, and Ann Joyce complain of an order of the circuit court of Randolph county, made in a proceeding to condemn land for railroad purposes, in which they are defendants, sustaining the motion of the applicant, Coal & Coke Railway Company, to set aside the verdict of the jury therein and granting it a new trial.

The question whether or not there is error in this order involves a consideration of the evidence. This record presents another case of a fatal skeleton bill of exceptions, whereby the evidence is not made a part of it, and therefore not a part of the record. The original bill of exceptions, which is claimed to make the evidence a part of it, was brought here by certiorari. It is a skeleton bill. The parenthetical direction to the clerk therein contained is as follows: "(Here insert the evidence as certified by the official stenographer, which evidence is now here referred to and directed to be here inserted.)" It does not appear that the evidence was annexed to the bill or so marked by letter, number, or other means of identification mentioned in the bill, or so described in the bill as to leave no doubt, when found in the record, that it is the evidence referred to in the bill. The bill of exceptions is therefore insufficient to make the evidence a part of it, or of the record. The statement copied in the record, purporting to be questions and answers of witnesses on the trial, has appended to it the following certificate:

"Grafton, W. Va., Jan. 29, 1904. I, W. H. Pilson, former stenographer of the 3d judicial circuit hereby certify that the foregoing evidence is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Shipley v. Virginian Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 5 d2 Outubro d2 1920
    ... ... King, ... 59 W.Va. 418, 53 S.E. 605; Dudley v. Barrett, 58 ... W.Va. 235, 52 S.E. 100; Coal & Coke Railway Co. v. Joyce ... et al., 58 W.Va. 544, 52 S.E. 498; McKendree v ... Shelton, ... ...
  • De Bd. v. Camden Interstate Ry. Co
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 17 d3 Abril d3 1907
    ...Va. 587, 50 S. E. 825. Dudley v. Barrett, 58 W. Va. 235, 52 S. E. 100, Parr v. Currence, 58 W. Va. 523, 52 S. E. 496, Railroad Co. v. Joyce, 58 W. Va. 544, 52 S. E. 498, and Woods v. King, 59 W. Va. 418, 53 S. E. 605, have not qualified this rule in any respect. We think the bill of excepti......
  • Bank of Gassaway v. James
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 17 d2 Abril d2 1928
    ...made a part of bill No. 2. Dudley v. Barrett, 58 W.Va. 235, 52 S.E. 100; Parr v. Currence, 58 W.Va. 523, 52 S.E. 496; Coal & Coke Co. v. Joyce, 58 W.Va. 544, 52 S.E. 498; McKendree v. Shelton, 51 W.Va. 516, 41 S.E. 909; Tracy's Adm. v. Coal Co., 57 W.Va. 587, 50 S.E. 825, are relied upon to......
  • Woods v. King
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 17 d2 Abril d2 1906
    ...S. E. 909; Tracy's Adm'x v. Carver Coal Co., 57 W. Va. 587, 50 S. E. 825; Dudley v. Barrett, 58 W. Va. —, 52 S. E. 100; Railway Co. v. Joyce, 58 W. Va. —, 52 S. E. 498; Parr v. Currence, 58 W. Va. —, 52 S. E. 496. After the writ of error was allowed in this action, certain affidavits and a ......
  • 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