Oil Producers Manufacturing & Supply Co. v. Irwin

West Virginia Supreme Court

Oil Producers Manufacturing & Supply Co. v. Irwin

60 S.E. 990, 64 W. Va. 55, 1908 W. Va. LEXIS 10

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 10, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 S.E. 990 (Oil Producers Manufacturing & Supply Co. v. Irwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oil Producers Manufacturing & Supply Co. v. Irwin, 60 S.E. 990, 64 W. Va. 55, 1908 W. Va. LEXIS 10 (W. Va. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, Judge:

The Oil Producers Manufacturing & Supply Company, a corporation, sued the defendants as a mining partnership, and sought recovery of $391.05, the price of a boiler and machinery attachments alleged to have been sold them. Issues were joined, on the pleas of the defendants Sparks, Ryan and Martin denying the partnership, and upon their plea of non-assumpsit. No pleas were tendered by the defendants J. S, Irwin or W. N. Ferrell, partners as Irwin & Ferrell. On the trial before the jury, there was a verdict in favor of Sparks, Ryan and Martin, but as to the defendants Irwin and Ferrell there was a verdict and judgment thereon against them in favor of the plaintiff for $391.05. The motion of the plaintiff to set aside the verdict in favor of Sparks, Ryan and Martin and award a new trial did not prevail, and as to them the final judgment was that the plaintiff take nothing and that they recover from the plaintiff their [56]*56costs; but leave was granted the plaintiff ■ to have prepared and certified proper bills of exception within thirty days from the rise of the court.

Seven several bills of exception — including a certificate of the evidence — purporting to have been signed by the judge December 19, 1905, were copied into the transcript and appear in the printed record; but no order of the court in term filing them, or by the judge in vacation certifying the same to the clerk, appears. We are precluded by section 9, chapter 131, Code, as construed by prior decisions, from treating these bills of exceptions as parts of the record, and from considering any points of error presented thereby. Pegram v. Stortz, 31 W. Va. 220; Forbee v. Shay, 46 W. Va. 736; Craft v. Mann, 46 W. Va. 478; Ketterman v. Railroad Co., 48 W. Va. 606; Tracy v. Oil Co., 57 W. Va. 587; Bank v. Wetzel, 58 W. Va. 1; Jones v. Harmer, 60 W. Va. 480. As all errors relied on and argued here are involved in these bills of exception, and therefore no error is made to appear in the final judgment, it must be affirmed,

Aifirmed.

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

Miller, Judge:

The Oil Producers Manufacturing & Supply Company, a corporation, sued the defendants as a mining partnership, and sought recovery of $391.05, the price of a boiler and machinery attachments alleged to have been sold them. Issues were joined, on the pleas of the defendants Sparks, Ryan and Martin denying the partnership, and upon their plea of non-assumpsit. No pleas were tendered by the defendants J. S, Irwin or W. N. Ferrell, partners as Irwin & Ferrell. On the trial before the jury, there was a verdict in favor of Sparks, Ryan and Martin, but as to the defendants Irwin and Ferrell there was a verdict and judgment thereon against them in favor of the plaintiff for $391.05. The motion of the plaintiff to set aside the verdict in favor of Sparks, Ryan and Martin and award a new trial did not prevail, and as to them the final judgment was that the plaintiff take nothing and that they recover from the plaintiff their [56]*56costs; but leave was granted the plaintiff ■ to have prepared and certified proper bills of exception within thirty days from the rise of the court.

Seven several bills of exception — including a certificate of the evidence — purporting to have been signed by the judge December 19, 1905, were copied into the transcript and appear in the printed record; but no order of the court in term filing them, or by the judge in vacation certifying the same to the clerk, appears. We are precluded by section 9, chapter 131, Code, as construed by prior decisions, from treating these bills of exceptions as parts of the record, and from considering any points of error presented thereby. Pegram v. Stortz, 31 W. Va. 220; Forbee v. Shay, 46 W. Va. 736; Craft v. Mann, 46 W. Va. 478; Ketterman v. Railroad Co., 48 W. Va. 606; Tracy v. Oil Co., 57 W. Va. 587; Bank v. Wetzel, 58 W. Va. 1; Jones v. Harmer, 60 W. Va. 480. As all errors relied on and argued here are involved in these bills of exception, and therefore no error is made to appear in the final judgment, it must be affirmed,

Aifirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E. 990, 64 W. Va. 55, 1908 W. Va. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oil-producers-manufacturing-supply-co-v-irwin-wva-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack