J. F. Seiberling & Co. v. Fletcher

• Citation: 47 Neb. 847,66 N.W. 839
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska
• Decision Date: 07 April 1896
• Parties: J. F. SEIBERLING & CO. v. FLETCHER.

47 Neb. 847

66 N.W. 839

J. F. SEIBERLING & CO.

v.FLETCHER.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

April 7, 1896.

Syllabus by the Court.

A bill of exceptions, though signed and allowed by the clerk of the district court in pursuance of the stipulation therefor required by statute, cannot be used in this court for any purpose, unless the clerk also certifies such bill of exceptions to be the original or a true copy. Martin v. Fillmore Co., 62 N. W. 863, 44 Neb. 719, followed.

Error to district court, Sherman county; Holcomb, Judge.

Action by J. F. Seiberling & Co. against Anson L. Fletcher. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.Paul & Templin, for plaintiffs in error.

Nightingale Bros., for defendant in error.

RAGAN, C.

J. F. Seiberling & Co. brought this suit to the district court of Sherman county against Anson L. Fletcher on a promissorynote. Fletcher had a verdict and judgment, and Seiberling & Co. prosecute here a petition in error.

1. The assignments of error argued in the brief are directed first to the action of the district court in the admission and rejection of certain evidence at the trial. These assignments of error cannot be reviewed, for the reason that the bill of exceptions is not authenticated as required by law. It is in precisely the condition that the bill of exceptions was in Romberg v. Fokken, 47 Neb. 198, 66 N. W. 282;Martin v. Fillmore Co., 44 Neb. 719, 62 N. W. 863. The bill of exceptions is signed and allowed by the clerk, but there is nowhere in the record any certificate of the clerk that the bill of exceptions is either the original or a copy.

2. The second assignment argued in the brief relates to the action of the district court in giving and refusing certain instructions. On looking into the record, we discover that no exception was taken by any person to any instruction given or refused. This assignment, therefore, cannot be considered. The pleadings support the judgment rendered. It must therefore be, and is, affirmed.