Indianapolis Outfitting Co. v. Brooks

Indiana Court of Appeals

Indianapolis Outfitting Co. v. Brooks

108 N.E. 867, 59 Ind. App. 79, 1915 Ind. App. LEXIS 174

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 14, 1915

DocketNo. 8,624

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 N.E. 867 (Indianapolis Outfitting Co. v. Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Indianapolis Outfitting Co. v. Brooks, 108 N.E. 867, 59 Ind. App. 79, 1915 Ind. App. LEXIS 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Hottel, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in appellee’s favor for $124.96 rendered by the Marion Superior Court in an action begun by appellee before a justice of the peace. The only error assigned is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial, and the only ground upon which such motion is based relates to an alleged error of the court in refusing to strike out certain testimony of the appellee.

Appellee insists that no question is presented by the appeal for' the reason that the evidence is not in the record. There is in the record what purports to be a bill of exceptions setting out certain parts of the evidence given at the trial of the cause and certified to by the reporter, but such bill of exceptions is not signed by the trial judge and there is no affirmative showing that it was ever filed with the clerk of the trial court. A bill of exceptions must be authenticated bj7- the signature of the trial judge and must be filed in the office of the clerk of the court or in open court. Rose v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (1914), 181 Ind. 658, 105 N. E. 241; Hoffman v. Isler (1912), 49 Ind. App. 284, 97 N. E. 188; Daugherty v. Reveal (1913), 54 Ind. App. 71, 102 N. E. 381. “The certificate of the shorthand reporter is not an essential and does not determine the sufficiency of a bill [81]*81of exceptions. It is a judicial act and is determined by the trial judge.” Daugherty v. Reveal, supra. As the record comes to us, no question is presented by the appeal and it is therefore dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 108 N. E. 867. See, also, 3 Cyc. 43, 45; 2 Cyc. 1083.

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

Hottel, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in appellee’s favor for $124.96 rendered by the Marion Superior Court in an action begun by appellee before a justice of the peace. The only error assigned is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial, and the only ground upon which such motion is based relates to an alleged error of the court in refusing to strike out certain testimony of the appellee.

Appellee insists that no question is presented by the appeal for' the reason that the evidence is not in the record. There is in the record what purports to be a bill of exceptions setting out certain parts of the evidence given at the trial of the cause and certified to by the reporter, but such bill of exceptions is not signed by the trial judge and there is no affirmative showing that it was ever filed with the clerk of the trial court. A bill of exceptions must be authenticated bj7- the signature of the trial judge and must be filed in the office of the clerk of the court or in open court. Rose v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (1914), 181 Ind. 658, 105 N. E. 241; Hoffman v. Isler (1912), 49 Ind. App. 284, 97 N. E. 188; Daugherty v. Reveal (1913), 54 Ind. App. 71, 102 N. E. 381. “The certificate of the shorthand reporter is not an essential and does not determine the sufficiency of a bill [81]*81of exceptions. It is a judicial act and is determined by the trial judge.” Daugherty v. Reveal, supra. As the record comes to us, no question is presented by the appeal and it is therefore dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 108 N. E. 867. See, also, 3 Cyc. 43, 45; 2 Cyc. 1083.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 N.E. 867, 59 Ind. App. 79, 1915 Ind. App. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indianapolis-outfitting-co-v-brooks-indctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack