Benson v. Baldwin

8 N.E. 909, 108 Ind. 106, 1886 Ind. LEXIS 192
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided October 27, 1886·No. No. 12,771·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Elliott, J.

It is necessary to a decision of the questions discussed by the appellant, that the evidence should .appear in the record, for, without the evidence, they are not properly presented. The appellee’s counsel stoutly insist that the evidence is not in the record, for the reason that the bill ■of exceptions was filed after the term, and it does not appear, ■except in the bill itself, that leave was given to filejhe bill .after the close of the term. The position assumed by appellee’s counsel is correct. It is quite well settled that the order granting time to file a bill after term must be made during term^and that it must appear in the order book. It is not sufficient that it appears as a recital in the bill of exceptions. >

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Benson v. Baldwin, 8 N.E. 909, 108 Ind. 106, 1886 Ind. LEXIS 192 (Ind. 1886).

8 N.E. 909 (Benson v. Baldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. State
59 N.E. 380 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1901)
Lake Erie & Western Railway Co. v. Juday
56 N.E. 931 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Robards v. State
53 N.E. 234 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1899)
Hancher v. Stephenson
46 N.E. 916 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
Johnson v. Ballard
46 N.E. 674 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
Gemmill v. State ex rel. Brown
43 N.E. 909 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)
DePauw University v. Smith
2 Ind. App. 313 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Engleman v. Arnold
20 N.E. 505 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)