Jones v. Williams

62 Miss. 183
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 62 Miss. 183 (Jones v. Williams) 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
Jones v. Williams, 62 Miss. 183 (Mich. 1884).

Opinion

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The question presented by this motion is the admissibility of [184]*184parol evidence to contradict the minutes of the circuit court as to the day of the adjournment of the court. The settled doctrine seems to be that the evidence proposed to vary the date shown by the record is not admissible. 2 Wharton’s Law of Ev., §§ 982, 990; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., § 538; 2 Taylor on Ev., § 1667 (7th edition).

Judicial records required by law to be kept are said to import unerring verity, and to be conclusive evidence against all the world as to their existence, date, and legal consequences.

The minutes of the proceedings of the circuit courts are required to be entered by the clerk, read in open court, and signed by the judge, “and on the last day of the term the minutes shall be drawn up, read, and signed on the same day, or before the adjournment of the court.” Code, § 2282. These minutes are a record of the most solemn character and entitled to the highest degree of verity ever attached to records.

The clause of the statute quoted disposes of the suggestion of counsel, that bills of exception may be presented to the judge within ten days after the end of the term, as prescribed by law, and are not required to be presented within ten days after the court adjourns without day. The last day of the term and the last day of the actual holding of the court are used by the statute to mean the same thing. The end of the term is the time of final adjournment, and the date of that is conclusively fixed by the minutes of the court.

The motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the record must be granted,.

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

Related

Robert Odom v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1995
Mcdaniel Brothers Constr. Co. v. Jordy
183 So. 2d 501 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1966)
Gardner v. Price
21 So. 2d 1 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1945)
Farmer v. Union Ins. Co. of Indiana
111 So. 584 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1927)
Williams v. State
87 So. 672 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1921)
Steverson v. McLeod Lumber Co.
81 So. 788 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1919)
Clark v. State
57 So. 209 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1911)
Bank of Meadville v. Hardy
48 So. 731 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1909)
Childress v. Carley
46 So. 164 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Miss. 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-williams-miss-1884.