Harris v. Planters' Bank

Mississippi Supreme Court

Harris v. Planters' Bank

8 Miss. 346

DecidedJanuary 15, 1843

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Miss. 346 (Harris v. Planters' Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Planters' Bank, 8 Miss. 346 (Mich. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

Turner, J.

This cause must go off on the preliminary question, as the only errors complained of are those contained in the bill of exceptions.

It does not appear, except by the statement of the clerk, that the exceptions to the opinions of the court were taken before the jury retired from the bar to consider of their verdict. This is not a matter for the clerk to prove. If we relax the long established rule on this subject, the next thing will be to receive affidavits of the fact. It is the business of counsel to set forth in the bill of exceptions that it was tendered in time, if such was the fact.

In the case of Maulding v. Rigby, 4 Howard, 222, it was decided that the transcript made by the clerk in making up his record of documentary [evidence referred to in a bill of exceptions, was not sufficient, although the clerk stated that “they are the records and executions referred to in the bill of exceptions.” See 4 How. 272, 370, 431; 5 How. 14, 278, 503, 606.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Turner, J.

This cause must go off on the preliminary question, as the only errors complained of are those contained in the bill of exceptions.

It does not appear, except by the statement of the clerk, that the exceptions to the opinions of the court were taken before the jury retired from the bar to consider of their verdict. This is not a matter for the clerk to prove. If we relax the long established rule on this subject, the next thing will be to receive affidavits of the fact. It is the business of counsel to set forth in the bill of exceptions that it was tendered in time, if such was the fact.

In the case of Maulding v. Rigby, 4 Howard, 222, it was decided that the transcript made by the clerk in making up his record of documentary [evidence referred to in a bill of exceptions, was not sufficient, although the clerk stated that “they are the records and executions referred to in the bill of exceptions.” See 4 How. 272, 370, 431; 5 How. 14, 278, 503, 606.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Miss. 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-planters-bank-miss-1843.