Community State Bank v. Durbin

Indiana Court of Appeals

Community State Bank v. Durbin

95 N.E.2d 310, 121 Ind. App. 229, 1951 Ind. App. LEXIS 196

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 1951

Docket18,116

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 95 N.E.2d 310 (Community State Bank v. Durbin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Community State Bank v. Durbin, 95 N.E.2d 310, 121 Ind. App. 229, 1951 Ind. App. LEXIS 196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinions

ON MOTION TO CORRECT TRANSCRIPT

Per Curiam.

Appellees have filed a verified motion stating that the official shorthand reporter in transcribing her shorthand notes taken at the trial inadvertently omitted part of an answer to a question. This statement is supported by the affidavit of the reporter and the certificates of the trial judge and clerk of the court.

Appellees ask “that said omission above mentioned be inserted as a permanent part of the transcript of evidence given in this cause.”

[232]*232It is said in II Watson’s Rev., Works’ Practice 668, §2097:

“The application to amend a bill of exceptions can not be made in the court to which an appeal has been taken. An appellate tribunal has no power to correct the record as it is certified by the clerk of the trial court. But after the bill has been corrected by the trial court, the corrected bill may then be brought up to the court in which the appeal is pending by a writ of certiorari, and it will then supersede the erroneous record.”

See also: Wabash, etc., Cement Co. v. Evarts (1923), 79 Ind. App. 371, 135 N. E. 491, 135 N. E. 801; Morgantown Mfg. Co. v. Hicks (1909), 43 Ind. App. 32, 86 N. E. 856.

Appellees’ motion is overruled.

Note. — Reported in 95 N. E. 2d 310.

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