Chattanooga Iron & Coal Co. v. Hanssard

143 Tenn. 553
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1920
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 143 Tenn. 553 (Chattanooga Iron & Coal Co. v. Hanssard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chattanooga Iron & Coal Co. v. Hanssard, 143 Tenn. 553 (Tenn. 1920).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Green

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The judgment in this case is affirmed because the record contains no motion for a new trial which we can notice.

A minute order recites that a motion for a new trial was made and overruled. Along with the transcript is a writ[554]*554ten motion which appears to have been filed in the court below. This motion, however, was not spread upon the minutes of the trial court nor Avas it included in the. bill of exceptions. It therefore forms no part of the record.

In Railroad v. Egerton, 98 Tenn., 541, 41 S. W., 1035, it was held that motions for a new trial must be incorporated in the minutes of the court. This holding was apparently affirmed in Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 114 Tenn., 632, 88 S. W., 166.

In Box Co. v. Gregory, 119 Tenn., 537, 105 S. W., 350, it Avas held that under the provisions of chapter 106 of the Acts of 1875, a motion for a new trial might be preserved in the bill of exceptions if proper reference thereto and identification thereof Avas made in a minute order. This is as far as the court has gone and as far as the court can go. It was said in Box Co. v. Gregory that the better practice Avould be to set forth the AAdiole motion on the minutes of the court. If this is not done, the motion must be included in the bill of exceptions, if it is to be relied on in this court.

It has been held in Tennessee since Allen v. State, Mart. & Y., 294, that a memorandum of a motion made below and sent up with the transcript cannot be considered unless made a part of the bill of exceptions.

The general rule in other jurisdictions is that a motion for a new trial must be incorporated into the bill of exceptions in order to be preserved for review on appeal. 14 Enc. PL & Pr., 967; 2 R. C. L., 127.

For the reason stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

Related

Koehn v. Hooper
193 Tenn. 417 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1951)
National Life & Accident Ins. v. Atwood
194 S.W.2d 350 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1946)
Perryman v. State
184 S.W.2d 164 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1945)
Dalton v. Dean
117 S.W.2d 973 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1938)
Frierson v. Smithson
113 S.W.2d 778 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1937)
Allen v. Cherokee Motor Coach Co., Inc.
100 S.W.2d 240 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1936)
Bailey v. American Glanzstoff Corp.
42 S.W.2d 347 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1931)
Hayes Chunn v. Holland
11 Tenn. App. 490 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1930)
Sanders v. Commercial Investment Trust
4 Tenn. App. 462 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 Tenn. 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chattanooga-iron-coal-co-v-hanssard-tenn-1920.