Palmer v. Allen.
Decision Date | 14 October 1913 |
Citation | 18 N.M. 237,135 P. 1173 |
Parties | PALMERv.ALLEN. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
A bill of exceptions will be stricken from the transcript on appeal, upon motion therefor, when no notice has been given the adverse party of the time and place of its proposed settlement and signing, as required by section 26, c. 57, S. L. 1907.
A bill of exceptions, in a case tried to a jury, must be settled and signed by the judge of the court in which the case was tried; and where the record fails to show that such bill of exceptions was signed by the judge, it will be stricken from the files, upon motion.
Where the assignment of errors is copied into appellant's brief, and the brief is served upon appellee's counsel, service of a separate copy of the said assignment of errors is not necessary.
Appeal from District Court, San Juan County; before Justice Abbott.
Action by J. M. Palmer against Frank B. Allen. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. On motion to strike assignment of error. Denied.
A bill of exceptions in a case tried to the jury must be settled by the judge of the court in which the case was tried, under Laws 1907, c. 57, § 26.
Perkins & Main, of Durango, Colo., for appellant.
Edwards & Martin, of Farmington, for appellee.
Appellee has filed a motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the files in this case on two grounds: (1) Because appellant failed to give appellee five days' notice of his intention of applying to the judge of the court in which the cause was tried to sign and settle the bill of exceptions; and (2) that the said bill of exceptions was not signed and sealed by the judge of the court in which said cause was tried.
[1][2] Both grounds of the motion are seemingly well taken. Section 26, c. 57, S. L. 1907, in so far as material, reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hanson v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Company
... ... ( Skinner v. Lewis, 62 P. 523; Medynski v ... Theiss, 59 P. 871 (Ore.) ; Palmer v. Allen, 18 ... N. M. 237; Smith v. Duff, 102 P. 982 (Mont.) ; ... Woodruff v. Douglas Co. (Ore.) 21 P. 49; Cameron ... v. County, (Ore.) ... ...
-
Garcia v. Universal Constructors, Inc., 455
...P. 45 (1918); Cox v. Douglas Candy Co., 22 N.M. 410, 163 P. 251 (1917); Mundy v. Irwin, 19 N.M. 170, 141 P. 877 (1914); Palmer v. Allen, 18 N.M. 237, 135 P. 1173 (1913); Oliver Typewriter Co. v. Burtner & Ramsey, 17 N.M. 354, 128 P. 62 (1912); Street v. Smith, 15 N.M. 95, 103 P. 644 (1909);......
-
Scholz v. Standard, Etc., Co.
...So. Pac. R. Co., 5 Utah 15, 86 Pac. 485; State Gowith, 19 Mont. 48, 47 Pac. 207; State Howard, 15 Wash. 425, 46 Pac. 650; Farner Allen, 18 N.M. 237, 135 Pac. 1173. 5 Our statute, however, is a section of the Code of 1919, which was a general revision of the entire statute law of the State, ......
-
Scholz v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co
...So. Pac. R. Co., 31 Utah, 15, 86 P. 485; State v. Gawith, 19 Mont. 48, 47 P. 207; State v. Howard, 15 Wash. 425, 46 P. 650; Palmer v. Allen, 18 N. M. 237, 135 P. 1173. Our statute, however, is a section of the Code of 1919, which was a general revision of the entire statute law of the state......