Buchart v. Burger
17 N.E. 125, 115 Ind. 123, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 305
Opinion
The appellee insists that there is no bill of exceptions in the record. On the back of the bill is written : “ Tendered to me for approval and signature, March 15th, 1886.” This is not sufficient. The statute in express terms requires that “the date of the presentation shall be stated in the bill of exceptions.” R. S. 1881, section 629. It has been expressly decided that a statement on the margin or on the back of the bill is not sufficient. Orton v. Tilden, 110 Ind. 131 (139).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Buchart v. Burger, 17 N.E. 125, 115 Ind. 123, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 305 (Ind. 1888).
17 N.E. 125 (Buchart v. Burger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hawkins v. State
166 N.E. 153 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1929)
Citizens' Street Railway Co. v. Abright
42 N.E. 238 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1895)
Cornell v. Hallett
40 N.E. 132 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Miller v. Blue
2 Ind. App. 288 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Wood v. Ohio Falls Car Co.
36 N.E. 282 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Plotz v. Friend
31 N.E. 587 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1892)
Hormann v. Hartmetz
27 N.E. 731 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
Buckner v. Spaulding
26 N.E. 792 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
White v. Gregory
25 N.E. 806 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
City of Plymouth v. Fields
25 N.E. 346 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
Shewalter v. Bergman
23 N.E. 686 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
McCoy v. State ex rel. Trucks
22 N.E. 986 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Maas
22 N.E. 983 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)
Rigler v. Rigler
22 N.E. 776 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)