Yates v. Kinney
Decision Date | 20 March 1888 |
Citation | 23 Neb. 648,37 N.W. 590 |
Parties | YATES v. KINNEY. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Objections to matters of form in a bill of exceptions, by which it is sought to quash the bill, must be made within a reasonable time after the bill is filed in the appellate court; and where not made for more than a year after the filing of the transcript, and after the case is set for trial, and the plaintiff has prepared and printed his briefs on the main issues, such objections will be deemed to be waived.
Where an original bill of exceptions is sent by the clerk of the district court to the supreme court, it is his duty to certify the same; but this objection may be waived by the parties, and will be deemed to be waived where the bill is treated by the adverse party as perfect, either by affirmative acts, or long acquiescence.
The act of 1875 relating to instructions to juries requires all instructions to be in writing, and filed with the clerk before being given to the jury, unless the writing is waived, etc. Even if delivered orally, the statutes seem to require them to be reduced to writing, and filed with the clerk, before the case is finally submitted, in order that exceptions may be taken by either party if desired, and that the jury may have the benefit of such instructions in considering their verdict.
Where instructions were delivered orally, and reduced to writing by the stenographic reporter, and inserted in the bill of exceptions, but not certified by the judge, held, that a motion to strike them out of a bill would be sustained.
Error to district court, Fillmore county; MORRIS, Judge.
Motion to quash bill of exceptions.O. P. Mason and C. E. Magoon, for plaintiff in error.
J. P. Maule, for defendant in error.
This is a motion to quash the bill of exceptions in this case for the following reasons:
The transcript and bill of exceptions were filed in this court, February 11, 1887, and this motion was filed on February 21, 1888,--more than one year after the filing of the case. In a number of cases decided by this court it has been held that objections to a bill of exceptions must be made at the earliest opportunity, otherwise they will be waived. In this state, where all the oral proceedings in the district courts are taken down by short-hand reporters, and bills of exceptions prepared from such stenographic reports, the probabilities are that bills of exceptions thus prepared will be substantially correct. Indeed, in a majority of the cases brought into this court but trifling amendments have been made to the bills thus prepared by such reporters. All presumptions, therefore, are in favor of a bill of exceptions duly signed by the judge. Where, however, a party intends to raise objections to some matter of form connected with the preparation of the bill, he should file his objection within a reasonable time, and before the adverse party has been permitted to incur the expense of preparing and printing a brief relating to the merits of the controversy. Good faith requires this, and that objections to the form of the bill not thus raised shall be considered as waived.
The objections to the preparations and signing of the bill, not having been made until more than a year from the date of filing the transcript in this court, and after the case was set down for hearing, and the plaintiff in error had prepared and printed his briefs, come too late, and are therefore waived. In a number of cases this court has held that, where the original bill of exceptions is used in the supreme court, it must be certified by the clerk of the district court. Flynn v. Jordan, 17 Neb. 520, 23 N. W. Rep. 519;Hogan v. O'Niel, 17 Neb. 642, 24 N. W. Rep. 213;Aultman v. Patterson, 14 Neb. 57, 14 N. W. Rep. 804. This provision, however, may be waived by the parties either by acts that recognize the validity of the bill, or by great delay in raising the objections, and a delay of a year in raising the objections would seem to be such waiver. The objections, therefore, come too late, and must be overruled.
The defendant moves to strike out of the bill of exceptions the “matter contained on pages 17-19, the same purporting to be the instructions of the court, for the following reasons: (1) There is no certificate of the reporter that the same are the instructions of the court; (2) there is no certificate of the judge that the same are the instructions of the court, and they are not ordered to be made part of the record in this case.” The certificate of the judge is as follows:
“ State of Nebraska, Fillmore county: I hereby certify that the above contains all the evidence and testimony offered or produced by either party to this action, together with the objections made to the introduction thereof, the rulings of the court thereon, and the exceptions thereto, and that the same is contained in foregoing printed pages numbered from 2 to 29 inclusive, and on request of defendant, same is directed to be made a part of the record herein. And I further certify same was received at my home...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Romberg v. Fokken
...inasmuch as they have conceded the validity of the bill of exceptions by raising no objections thereto in this court. Yates v. Kinney, 23 Neb. 648, 37 N. W. 590, recognizes such rule, but we do not hesitate to say that it is unsound. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, this court......
-
Romberg v. Fokken
... ... they have conceded the validity of the bill of exceptions by ... raising no objections thereto in this court. Yates v ... Kinney, 23 Neb. 648, 37 N.W. 590, recognizes such rule, ... but we do not hesitate to say that it is unsound. In the ... exercise of its ... ...
-
Nash v. Costello
... ... Haddox, 14 Neb. 59, 527, 14 N.W. 803; ... Cheney v. Cooper, 14 Neb. 413, 16 N.W. 433; ... Smith v. Kaiser, 17 Neb. 184, 22 N.W. 368; Yates ... v. Kinney, 23 Neb. 648, 37 N.W. 590; Warren v ... Brown, 31 Neb. 8, 47 N.W. 633; Crane Bros. Mfg. Co ... v. Keck, 35 Neb. 683, 53 N.W. 606.) ... ...
-
Thompson v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co.
...to the bill was waived by the filing of briefs on the merits, and the inexcusable delay in raising it in this court. Yates v. Kinney, 23 Neb. 648, 37 N. W. 590. The other ground of the motion to quash would have been available had it been timely presented, since it was the duty of the plain......