McMillan v. Plymouth Electric Light & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 03 June 1919
• Docket Number: No. 9827.,9827.
• Citation: 123 N.E. 446,70 Ind.App. 336
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: McMILLAN et al. v. PLYMOUTH ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO.

70 Ind.App. 336

123 N.E. 446

McMILLAN et al.

v.PLYMOUTH ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO.

No. 9827.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

June 3, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; Smith N. Stevens, Judge.

Action by Walter J. McMillan, administrator, etc., against the Plymouth Electric Light & Power Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Adam E. Wise, of Plymouth, and Gallagher & Messner, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Harley A. Logan, of Plymouth, for appellee.

BATMAN, C. J.

[1][2][3][4] This is an action by appellant against appellee to foreclose a mechanic's lien, in which a judgment was rendered in favor of the latter against the former. The sole error relied upon for reversal is the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, which is based solely on the grounds that the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. It thus appears that the only questions which appellant seeks to present by this appeal require a consideration of the evidence. Appellee asserts that the evidence is not in the record, and we will first direct our attention to a consideration of this contention, for if it is well taken there is nothing presented for our determination. An inspection of the transcript filed in this court discloses that there is embodied therein what purports to be a bill of exceptions containing the evidence, but it does not follow from this that such bill is a part of the record. Certain other facts must appear before it can be so considered. Among other things, it must appear that it was duly filed. Hoover v. Weesner (1896) 147 Ind. 510, 45 N. E. 650, 46 N. E. 905. Such filing must be shown either by an order book entry or by the certificate of the clerk of the trial court. Howe v. White (1903) 162 Ind. 74, 69 N. E. 684;Graves v. Jenkins (1914) 58 Ind. App. 500, 108 N. E. 531. It must also appear that such filing was made during the term at which the motion for a new trial was overruled, or within a time given beyond such term for that purpose. Bennett v. Root Furn. Co. (1911) 176 Ind. 606, 96 N. E. 708;Home Stove Co. v. Bishop (1918) 119 N. E. 152. In the instant case the record fails to show a compliance with any of these requirements. It appears that the judgment from which this appeal is taken was rendered at the May term of the Marshall circuit court in the year 1916. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial in due time, which was overruled at the following September term of said court. The record fails to show that the alleged bill of exceptions was filed during said term, or that any time was given appellant beyond the expiration thereof for such purpose. In fact the record does not show, by either of the recognized methods, that it was ever filed, there being no order book entry to that effect in the transcript, and the clerk's certificate being silent in that regard. True, the clerk's certificate recites that the transcript contains “the longhand report of the evidence *** as filed in my office by Francis Karn, court reporter of said court,” but it makes no reference to the filing of any bill of exceptions. The longhand report of the evidence alone does not constitute a bill of exceptions. It requires the certificate of the trial judge to make it a completed bill. Hence a certificate, merely reciting that such longhand report was filed, is not sufficient to show that the bill of exceptions was filed. Hoffman v. Isler (1911) 49 Ind. App. 284, 97 N. E. 188;Fairbanks v. Warrum (1913) 56 Ind. App. 337, 104 N. E. 983, 1141. We note that certain file marks of the clerk of the trial court appear on the back of various pages of the alleged bill of exceptions containing the evidence, some bearing a date prior and some bearing a date subsequent to the day on which the trial judge attached his certificate thereto, but it is well settled that the filing of a bill of exceptions cannot be shown on appeal by the file mark of the clerk thereon alone. Rector v. Druley (1909) 172 Ind. 332, 88 N. E. 602. For the reasons stated we hold that the alleged bill of exceptions containing the evidence is not a part of the record.

[5][6][7][8][9] But aside from the question of filing, there is still another reason why such bill of exceptions cannot be considered as being a part of the record. It appears that the transcript in question was prepared in pursuance of a written præcipe, which, after entitling the cause, is addressed to the clerk of the trial court in the following words:

“You are directed to make out a complete transcript of all the pleadings, entries, and orders made and entered of record in the above-entitled cause.”

It will be observed that this præcipe does not call for a transcript of the entire record, but for only such portions thereof as are properly designated as pleadings, orders, and entries. Pleadings in a cause are the formal statements by the parties of their respective claims and defenses. 21 R. C. L. 436; Kilpatrick-Koch, etc., Co. v. Box, 13 Utah, 494, 45 Pac. 629;Paxton v. State, 59 Neb. 460, 81 N. W. 383, 80 Am. St. Rep. 689. In its broadest sense, the word “pleadings” includes all proceedings from the complaint until issue is joined....