Imrie v. United States

Tenth Circuit

Imrie v. United States

38 F.2d 634, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 1930

DocketNo. 66

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 F.2d 634 (Imrie v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Imrie v. United States, 38 F.2d 634, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2374 (10th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment forfeiting an automobile, under the provisions of section 26, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act, section 40, tit. 27, U. S. C. (27 USCA § 40). Errors assigned are all predicated upon trial proceedings, which can be brought into the record only by proper bill of exceptions, duly approved and signed by the trial court. No such bill of exceptions appears in this record. On the contrary, there is a literal transcript of the evidence and other trial proceedings. Tingley v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 34 F.(2d) 1; Caldwell v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 36 F.(2d) 738; Davis v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 38 F.(2d) 631. In the absence of a proper bill of exceptions, we cannot consider the errors assigned. Davis v. United States, supra.

The judgment is affirmed, and the mandate will issue forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment forfeiting an automobile, under the provisions of section 26, tit. 2, of the National Prohibition Act, section 40, tit. 27, U. S. C. (27 USCA § 40). Errors assigned are all predicated upon trial proceedings, which can be brought into the record only by proper bill of exceptions, duly approved and signed by the trial court. No such bill of exceptions appears in this record. On the contrary, there is a literal transcript of the evidence and other trial proceedings. Tingley v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 34 F.(2d) 1; Caldwell v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 36 F.(2d) 738; Davis v. United States (C. C. A. 10) 38 F.(2d) 631. In the absence of a proper bill of exceptions, we cannot consider the errors assigned. Davis v. United States, supra.

The judgment is affirmed, and the mandate will issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F.2d 634, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/imrie-v-united-states-ca10-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack