Morgantown Manufacturing Co. v. Hicks
| Decision Date | 06 January 1909 |
| Docket Number | 6,894 |
| Citation | 86 N.E. 856,43 Ind.App. 32 |
| Parties | MORGANTOWN MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. HICKS |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Morgan Circuit Court; Joseph W. Williams, Judge.
Action by Willard Hicks against the Morgantown Manufacturing Company. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500, and from an order correcting the bill of exceptions filed, defendant appeals. (For decision on merits, see -- Ind.App. --.).
Appeal from order correcting bill of exceptions sustained.
James Bingham, for appellant.
E. M McCord and Willis Hickam, for appellee.
The appellee brought this action in the court below. Issues were formed, a trial had, and verdict returned in favor of appellee, appellant's motion for a new trial overruled and time given in which to file bills of exception, and judgment rendered on the verdict. Within the time fixed by the court the appellant filed its bill of exceptions, in due form, setting out the evidence in the case. The bill of exceptions was properly signed by the trial judge, and filed in the clerk's office, and became a part of the record in the cause. The cause was then appealed to this court. After this the appellee filed his motion in the court below to correct the bill of exceptions in this respect, there being this agreement set out in the original bill of exceptions: "It is agreed by and between the parties, that this is the piece of timber introduced in evidence and is the piece used by Mr. Hicks, and was being used there when injured." It was claimed that this entry should have read: "It is agreed by and between the parties, that this is the piece of timber now exhibited before the jury, that was used by Mr. Hicks, and was being sawed by him when injured." It was asked that the record be corrected so that the bill of exceptions in this respect would correspond with what appellee claimed it should be. To this proceeding appellant appeared, and such proceedings were had that the court ordered the bill of exceptions corrected as prayed for. An appeal was taken from this order, and is now pending in this court as auxiliary to the appeal taken from the judgment in the cause, and appellee has applied to this court for a writ of certiorari requiring the clerk to certify to the correction of the bill of exceptions. Appellant moved in the court below to dismiss the petition to have the bill of exceptions corrected, for the reason that no showing of any memoranda, in writing, existed of any mistake in the bill of exceptions, and no evidence thereof further than oral evidence. After the evidence was heard upon the appellee's motion to correct the record, appellant again moved to dismiss the petition for the same reason.
It is competent to correct a bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Vandalia R. Co.
... ... St. 1901, inclusive. The same is true in the taxation of waterworks, gas, manufacturing, mining, gravel and turnpike roads, savings banks, insurance and other corporations organized under ... ...
-
Morgantown Mfg. Co. v. Hicks
...43 Ind.App. 3286 N.E. 856MORGANTOWN MFG. CO.v.HICKS.No. 6,894.Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.Jan. 7, 1909 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; J. W. Williams, Judge.Action by Williard Hicks against the Morgantown Manufacturing Company. On certiorari to compel the clerk of the trial court to certify to the correction of the bill of exceptions. Denied.[86 N.E. 857]James Bingham, for appellant. Willis Hickam and E. M. McCord, for appellee.RABB, J.The appellee brought this action in the court below. Issues were formed, a ... ...
-
Clark v. Vandalia Railroad Co.
... ... 87, ... §§ 1, 2. The same is true in the taxation of ... water-works, gas, manufacturing, mining, gravel and turnpike ... roads, savings [172 Ind. 417] banks, insurance and other ... ...