Howard v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 22 January 1890 |
| Citation | 3 Wyo. 311,23 P. 68 |
| Parties | HOWARD v. BOWMAN |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Error to district court, Crook county.
Action in replevin by one Howard against one Bowman. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Anthony C. Campbell, for plaintiff in error.
W. S. Metz, for defendant in error.
OPINION
In this case the plaintiff in error was plaintiff in the district court in an action of replevin. The law and facts were submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, the trial resulting in findings and a judgment for the defendant. The bill of exceptions filed with the transcript is fatally defective in two respects:
1. On the overruling of plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he asked and obtained time until the 1st day of December, 1887, to present his bill. The record does not any where disclose whether the bill was tendered to the court for allowance within the time given. It should affirmatively appear, by a recital of the record, that this was done; otherwise it cannot be considered by this court.
2. It does not appear from the bill that all, or even any, of the testimony heard on the trial of the cause is set forth in the bill. It is not certified to this court as a true or correct bill, nor does the certificate show that it contains so much of the evidence as is necessary to explain all of the exceptions reserved or any of them. The certificate simply is, in substance, that all exceptions taken in the cause were taken at the time the adverse ruling was made, and that all of the proceedings were had and taken in the court below during the judicial days of a regular term of said court. The record being thus defective, the only question cognizable by this court is whether the pleadings are sufficient to support the judgment. We are of the opinion that they are, and the judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark
...v. Minnesota Baptist Convention, (Wyo.) 16 P.2d 48; Seng v. State, (Wyo.) 122 P. 631; Fishback v. Bramel, (Wyo.) 44 P. 840; Howard v. Bowman, (Wyo.) 23 P. 68; McCague Co. v. Mallin, (Wyo.) 147 P. 507; Callahan v. Houck & Co., 14 Wyo. 201; Wyoming Loan & Trust Co. v. Holliday Company, (Wyo.)......
-
Fryer v. Campbell
...Convention (Wyo.) 16 P.2d 48, and is not signed by the Judge. Seng v. State, 20 Wyo. 222; Fishback v. Bramel, 6 Wyo. 293; Howard v. Bowman, 3 Wyo. 311; McCague Inv. Co. v. Mallin, 23 Wyo. 201; Insurance Co. v. Walker Company, 23 Wyo. 264; Callahan v. Houck Co. 14 Wyo. 201; Wyoming v. Hollid......
-
Davis v. Minnesota Baptist Convention of Minneapolis, Minn
...the parties on the trial of the case. See Seng v. State, 20 Wyo. 222, 122 P. 631; Fishback v. Bramel, 6 Wyo. 293, 44 P. 840; Howard v. Bowman, 3 Wyo. 311, 23 P. 68; Wyoming Loan & Trust Co. v. W. H. Holliday Co., Wyo. 386, 24 P. 193; Chosen Friends etc. League v. Otterson, et al., 7 Wyo. 89......
-
Koppala v. State
...The transcript of the evidence is not a part of the bill, not being included in nor identified by it. (France v. Bank, 3 Wyo. 187; Howard v. Bowman, 3 Wyo. 311; Fishback v. Bramel, 6 Wyo. 297.) The exceptions which the errors are grounded were not properly preserved or shown by the bill. (U......