Dimond Brothers v. Beckwith, Quinn & Company

• Decision Date: 09 January 1909
• Parties: DIMOND BROTHERS v. BECKWITH, QUINN & COMPANY
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

98 P. 889

17 Wyo. 333

DIMOND BROTHERS v. BECKWITH, QUINN & COMPANY

Supreme Court of Wyoming

January 9, 1909

ERROR to the District Court, Sweetwater County; HON. DAVID H CRAIG, Judge.

This was an action brought in the district court by Beckwith Quinn & Company, a corporation, against Dimond Brothers, a partnership. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants prosecuted error. The case was heard upon the motion of defendant in error to dismiss.

Motion dismissed.

B. M Ausherman, for defendant in error, in support of the motion to dismiss.

There being no bill of exceptions appearing to contain all the evidence, none of the errors alleged can be considered. (Howard v. Bowman, 3 Wyo. 312; Chosen Friends &c. League v. Otterson, 7 Wyo. 89; Callahan v Houck, 89 P. 372.) The brief of plaintiff in error deals wholly with statements of the evidence, which is not properly before the court, and it is, therefore, not entitled to consideration.

J. H. Ryckman, for plaintiff in error. (No brief on the motion.)

BEARD, JUSTICE. POTTER, C. J., and SCOTT, J., concur.

OPINION

BEARD, JUSTICE.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error to recover damages for an alleged trespass upon real estate. The cause was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff below and judgment was entered upon the verdict, and the defendants below, plaintiffs in error, bring error.

The defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings in error for the reason that there is no bill of exceptions filed in the case that raises any question of error that can be considered under the law by this court.

The greater portion of the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error is devoted to the argument of alleged errors of the district court in its rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, and alleged prejudicial remarks of the trial judge; but as there is no bill of exceptions in the record containing either the evidence or such remarks, or any exceptions, there is nothing that can be considered here in that respect.

It is also urged that the court erred in refusing certain instructions requested by plaintiffs in error, and especially in refusing to instruct the jury to make special findings of fact. We have searched the record but have been unable to find therein any exception by the plaintiffs in error to the refusal of the court to so...