Coy v. Miller

Citation74 N.W. 958,54 Neb. 499
PartiesCOY v. MILLER.
Decision Date08 April 1898
CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.

A bill of exceptions cannot be considered in the supreme court unless authenticated by the clerk of the district court as part of the record.

Error to district court, Phelps county; Beall, Judge.

Action by Christian Miller against Thomas Coy. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.J. R. Patrick and B. F. Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Rhea Bros., for defendant in error.

SULLIVAN, J.

This action was commenced in the district court for Phelps county to recover the title and possession of certain real estate. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment in his favor, and the defendant presents the record to this court for review. The whole controversy between the parties pertains to the location of the divisional line between their adjoining lands, and the errors assigned and argued in the briefs of counsel relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. This question we cannot consider, for want of a properly authenticated bill of exceptions. The certificate of the clerk of the district court, attached to the record before us, is as follows: “I, I. C. Huck, clerk of the district court in and for said county and state aforesaid, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the petition, answer, mandate S. court, stipulation, motion, journal entry, motion, and journal entry in the above-entitled cause, as the same is on file and on record in my office.” Under repeated decisions of this court, we are authorized to examine documents purporting to be bills of exceptions only when they are authenticated by the certificate of the clerk as part of the record. Railroad Co. v. Kinney, 47 Neb. 393, 66 N. W. 449;Machine Co. v. Gerhold, 47 Neb. 397, 66 N. W. 538;Childerson v. Childerson, 47 Neb. 162, 66 N. W. 281;Spurck v. Dean, 49 Neb. 66, 68 N. W. 375;Merrill v. Improvement Co., 49 Neb. 198, 68 N. W. 365;Yankton, N. & S. W. R. Co. v. State, 49 Neb. 272, 68 N. W. 487;Wax v. State, 43 Neb. 18, 61 N. W. 117;Sieberling & Co. v. Fletcher, 47 Neb. 847, 66 N. W. 839;Scott v. Spencer, 42 Neb. 632, 60 N. W. 892;Romberg v. Fokken, 47 Neb. 198, 66 N. W. 282. In the case last cited it is said, “The statute requires both the transcript and the bill of exceptions to be authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of the district court, and we have no right to ignore or disregard its mandatory provisions.”...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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