First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Wilder

Eighth Circuit

First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Wilder

100 F. 223, 40 C.C.A. 340, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4247

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 13, 1900

DocketNo. 1,341

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 100 F. 223 (First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Wilder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Nat. Bank of Denver v. Wilder, 100 F. 223, 40 C.C.A. 340, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4247 (8th Cir. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

A motion is made in this case by the Eirst National Bank of Denver, the plaintiff in error, “for a rule or order permitting it to file a supplemental bill of exceptions” to bring to the attention of this court an alleged occurrence at the trial of the cause of which no mention is made in the bill of exceptions contained in the record now on Ale in this court. The motion is accompanied by several affidavits, which purport to set out certain remarks of the attorney for the defendant in error in his argument of the case to the jury in the circuit court. Whether the motion made contemplates that this court shall accept these affidavits as a. supplemental bill of exceptions, or shall order the lower court to accept them and grant a supplemental hill of exceptions founded [224]*224thereon, or what “rale or order’’ it is desired that this court shall make in the premises, is not indicated by the motion, and it is not material to inquire; for, in any aspect of the question, the motion must be and is denied, on the authority of the following cases: Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 298, 12 Sup. Ct. 450, 36 L. Ed. 162; Honey v. Railroad Co., 27 C. C. A. 262, 82 Fed. 773; Rollins v. Board, 24 C. C. A. 298, 78 Fed. 741; Case v. Hall, 36 C. C. A. 259, 94 Fed. 300, 302.

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

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

A motion is made in this case by the Eirst National Bank of Denver, the plaintiff in error, “for a rule or order permitting it to file a supplemental bill of exceptions” to bring to the attention of this court an alleged occurrence at the trial of the cause of which no mention is made in the bill of exceptions contained in the record now on Ale in this court. The motion is accompanied by several affidavits, which purport to set out certain remarks of the attorney for the defendant in error in his argument of the case to the jury in the circuit court. Whether the motion made contemplates that this court shall accept these affidavits as a. supplemental bill of exceptions, or shall order the lower court to accept them and grant a supplemental hill of exceptions founded [224]*224thereon, or what “rale or order’’ it is desired that this court shall make in the premises, is not indicated by the motion, and it is not material to inquire; for, in any aspect of the question, the motion must be and is denied, on the authority of the following cases: Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 298, 12 Sup. Ct. 450, 36 L. Ed. 162; Honey v. Railroad Co., 27 C. C. A. 262, 82 Fed. 773; Rollins v. Board, 24 C. C. A. 298, 78 Fed. 741; Case v. Hall, 36 C. C. A. 259, 94 Fed. 300, 302.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 F. 223, 40 C.C.A. 340, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-of-denver-v-wilder-ca8-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack