Kyle v. Gadsden Land & Improvement Co.

• Decision Date: 27 July 1892
• Citation: 96 Ala. 376,11 So. 478
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: KYLE ET AL. v. GADSDEN LAND & IMP. CO.

11 So. 478

96 Ala. 376

KYLE ET AL. v. GADSDEN LAND & IMP. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 27, 1892

Appeal from city court of Gadsden; JOHN H. DISQUE, Judge.

Action by Kyle & Elliott against the Gadsden Land & Improvement Company to recover an amount alleged to be due for materials furnished. On the court's sustaining defendant's objection to the admission of certain evidence, plaintiffs submitted to nonsuit, with right of appeal. Affirmed.

Jas. L. Tanner, for appellants.

Dortch & Martin, for appellee.

COLEMAN J.

In return to the writ of certiorari ordered by this court the clerk of the city court has sent up a certified transcript of the bill of exceptions, as signed by the judge before whom the case was tried. This is the only record of the proceedings on the trial of the case we can consider on appeal as the true bill of exceptions. It contains the following statement: "The plaintiff offered in evidence the following statement in writing, with its indorsements thereon. (Clerk will here set out statement and indorsements.) To the admission of said evidence the defendant, the Gadsden Land & Improvement Company, objected and the court sustained the objection," etc. The question to be determined is whether the reference in the bill of exceptions to the "statement and indorsements" is sufficient to authorize the clerk of the court to insert, as a part thereof, any "statement and indorsements," or whether, after the record has been made up, parol proof is admissible to identify the "statements" referred to. The rule declared by this court is, "The record must be so complete that a succeeding officer, coming into the place of the one before whom the business was transacted, cannot reasonably mistake what was done. When a document is sought to be made a part of it by reference, and not by copy, it must be so described that a succeeding officer can readily and with certainty know what document or paper is referred to, without reason for mistake. Parsons v. Woodward, 73 Ala. 352. In the case of Looney v. Bush, Min. 413, it is declared that a copy of the instrument must be set out in the bill of exceptions, or it must so describe the paper by its date amount, parties, or other identifying features as to leave no room for mistake in the transcribing officer." This rule has never been departed from in this state. Moore v Helms, 77 Ala. 380; Pearce v. Clements, 73 Ala. 256; Strawbridge v. State, 48...