Flint v. Burnell

19 N.E. 140, 116 Ind. 481, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 164
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided December 14, 1888·No. No. 13,438·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Elliott, J.

The questions in this ease can not be decided without the evidence, and that is not properly in the record. The counsel who prepared the bill of exceptions wrote a skeleton bill, and attempted to make provision for the insertion of the oral testimony taken by the stenographer by using the words here insert,” without setting out the evidence. This course is not the proper one. At common law all evidence must be incorporated in the bill before it is signed. Irwin v. Smith, 72 Ind. 482, and cases cited pp. 488-489.

Our statute modifies the common law rule, but it does not so far change it as to enable a party to get the evidence into the record in the method adopted in this case. Wagoner v. Wilson, 108 Ind. 210; Stone v. Brown, ante, p. 78.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Flint v. Burnell, 19 N.E. 140, 116 Ind. 481, 1888 Ind. LEXIS 164 (Ind. 1888).

19 N.E. 140 (Flint v. Burnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morningstar v. Musser
28 N.E. 1119 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
Pennsylvania Co. v. Brush
28 N.E. 615 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1891)
Patterson v. Churchman
22 N.E. 662 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1889)