State ex rel. Bankers Reserve Life Association v. Scott
| Decision Date | 19 December 1899 |
| Docket Number | 11,054 |
| Citation | 81 N.W. 305,59 Neb. 499 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEBRASKA, EX REL. BANKERS RESERVE LIFE ASSOCIATION, RELATOR, v. CUNNINGHAM R. SCOTT, RESPONDENT |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ORIGINAL application for mandamus to require respondent to allow and sign a bill of exceptions. Writ allowed.
WRIT ALLOWED.
T. J Mahoney, for relator.
Weaver & Giller, contra.
The question raised by this record is not a very perplexing one. The action is an application to this court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for a writ of mandamus commanding Hon. Cunningham R. Scott, one of the judges of the district court for the fourth judicial district, to allow and sign a bill of exceptions. The respondent, in his return to the alternative writ, sets out at length the proceedings had before him in the case of Finn against Bankers Reserve Life Association, and, in justification of his refusal to sign the bill of exceptions presented to him for allowance in that case, states: "I further certify that all the evidence and every part thereof that was introduced before me at the time of the hearing of the motion to set aside said judgment is already incorporated in the bill of exceptions which I signed; and to incorporate into said bill of exceptions the matters sought to be incorporated therein by these proceedings would be incorporating therein extrinsic matter not introduced in evidence and would therefore be a violation of the well settled practice of this state by the adjudications of this court that not matter shall go into the bill of exceptions as evidence unless it had been formally introduced at the time of the hearing." The matters which it is now sought to have incorporated into the bill of exceptions are the rules of practice of the district court and a recital of events which transpired in the presence of the court, and which, it is claimed, have a material bearing on the rulings of which the relator complains. The contention of the respondent, that the bill of exceptions should contain only evidence formally introduced at the trial, or on the hearing of a motion, can not be sustained. To intelligently review an order or judgment of the district court it is necessary that this court should be put in possession of all the facts and circumstances known to the district court, and which it is claimed did influence, or should have influenced, its decision. What transpires in the presence of the court, and what is judicially known to the court, need not be formally given...
To continue reading
Request your trial