Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. Woolman

59 N.E. 1087, 26 Ind. App. 642, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 320
Indiana Court of Appeals·Decided April 4, 1901·No. No. 3,437·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Counsel for appellee insists9that the transcript shows on its face that no question is presented for review, for the reason that there is no seal attached to the certificate of the clerk. The certificate is signed by the clerk of the Lake Superior Court and states that the seal is affixed, but it is in fact without any such seal. As what purports to be a transcript of the record is not authenticated by the seal of the lower court, no question is presented. Fidelity, etc., Union v. Byrd, 154 Ind. 47; East Chicago, etc., Co. v. Siwy, 23 Ind. App. 564; Conkey v. Conder, 137 Ind. 411; Watson v. Finch, 150 Ind. 183; Carpenter v. Schaeffer, 154 Ind. 694; §§661, 7932 Burns 1894; Ewbank’s Manual, §117.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. Woolman, 59 N.E. 1087, 26 Ind. App. 642, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 1901).

59 N.E. 1087 (Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. Woolman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McIlhinny v. McIlhinny
24 L.R.A. 489 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Watson v. Finch
48 N.E. 245 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
4 Fidelity Building & Savings Union v. Byrd
55 N.E. 867 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1900)
Carpenter v. Schaeffer
57 N.E. 105 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1900)
East Chicago Iron & Steel Co. v. Siwy
55 N.E. 785 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1899)