Leftwitch v. Lecanu

Supreme Court

Leftwitch v. Lecanu

71 U.S. 187, 18 L. Ed. 388, 4 Wall. 187, 1866 U.S. LEXIS 871

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 28, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 71 U.S. 187 (Leftwitch v. Lecanu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leftwitch v. Lecanu, 71 U.S. 187, 18 L. Ed. 388, 4 Wall. 187, 1866 U.S. LEXIS 871 (1867).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice MILLER

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only allegation of error in this record relates to a certificate of a notary public, that he had notified the in-dorsers of a promissory note of the dishonor of said note.

The bill of exceptions states that “ plaintiff’ offered in evidence an instrument in writing on the back of the protest, purporting to be a certificate of the notary, that he had notified the indorser of the note, which is hereunto annexed for reference as a part of this bill, to which certificate counsel for defendant objected,” &e. bio such paper is found annexed to the bill of exceptions, nor in any manner referred to, or marked, or identified as being a part of the bill of exceptions, or as the paper which was offered in evidence.

*189 The suit being in the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana was commenced by petition, and according to the practice in such cases, there is annexed to the petition a copy of the note sued on, and of the protest and certificate of notice to the indorsers. But this is merely a copy attached to, and a part of the pleading, and is certainly not the paper which was offered in evidence. It may or may not he a perfect copy of that paper; but whether it is so or not, it is certain that it does not become a part of the bill of exceptions by being attached to the pleading.

If a paper which is to constitute a part of a bill of exceptions, is not incorporated into the body of the bill, it must be annexed to it, or so marked by letter, number, or other means of identification mentioned in the bill, as to leave no doubt, when found in the record, that it is the one referred to in the bill of exceptions.

There is nothing of the kind here; and as we must presume the ruling of the court to be right, in the absence of .anything showing it to be wrong, the judgment must be

AFFIRMED.

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

Mr. Justice MILLER

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only allegation of error in this record relates to a certificate of a notary public, that he had notified the in-dorsers of a promissory note of the dishonor of said note.

The bill of exceptions states that “ plaintiff’ offered in evidence an instrument in writing on the back of the protest, purporting to be a certificate of the notary, that he had notified the indorser of the note, which is hereunto annexed for reference as a part of this bill, to which certificate counsel for defendant objected,” &e. bio such paper is found annexed to the bill of exceptions, nor in any manner referred to, or marked, or identified as being a part of the bill of exceptions, or as the paper which was offered in evidence.

*189 The suit being in the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana was commenced by petition, and according to the practice in such cases, there is annexed to the petition a copy of the note sued on, and of the protest and certificate of notice to the indorsers. But this is merely a copy attached to, and a part of the pleading, and is certainly not the paper which was offered in evidence. It may or may not he a perfect copy of that paper; but whether it is so or not, it is certain that it does not become a part of the bill of exceptions by being attached to the pleading.

If a paper which is to constitute a part of a bill of exceptions, is not incorporated into the body of the bill, it must be annexed to it, or so marked by letter, number, or other means of identification mentioned in the bill, as to leave no doubt, when found in the record, that it is the one referred to in the bill of exceptions.

There is nothing of the kind here; and as we must presume the ruling of the court to be right, in the absence of .anything showing it to be wrong, the judgment must be

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 U.S. 187, 18 L. Ed. 388, 4 Wall. 187, 1866 U.S. LEXIS 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leftwitch-v-lecanu-scotus-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack