Phillips v. Christmas

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Phillips v. Christmas

2 Ky. Op. 583, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 512

DecidedSeptember 23, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 583 (Phillips v. Christmas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Phillips v. Christmas, 2 Ky. Op. 583, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 512 (Ky. Ct. App. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge Williams :

There is no possible right in which the bill of exception, containing the evidence in this case can be regarded consistent with the Code of Practice and the adjudications of this court. The motion for a new trial was overruled October 26, 1867, and “time until Saturday next is given him to file bill of exceptions.” February 29th, more than four months afterwards, appellant moved for leave to withdraw the bill of exceptions filed in case No. 1703 and file it in this case. March 7th, the court granted leave to file the bill of exceptions, which had been im[584]*584properly filed in No. 1703 “in this case Nunc pro tunc as of November, 1867.”

Wood & Bernardj, for appellants. Bodley & Simrall, for appellee.

So that even this nunc pro tunc filing was 28 days too late under any view of the case. It is not however intended to decide the validity of such order had it been filed as of the right time. There being no bill of exceptions no other question can be adjudicated. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed with damage. ■

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

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge Williams :

There is no possible right in which the bill of exception, containing the evidence in this case can be regarded consistent with the Code of Practice and the adjudications of this court. The motion for a new trial was overruled October 26, 1867, and “time until Saturday next is given him to file bill of exceptions.” February 29th, more than four months afterwards, appellant moved for leave to withdraw the bill of exceptions filed in case No. 1703 and file it in this case. March 7th, the court granted leave to file the bill of exceptions, which had been im[584]*584properly filed in No. 1703 “in this case Nunc pro tunc as of November, 1867.”

Wood & Bernardj, for appellants. Bodley & Simrall, for appellee.

So that even this nunc pro tunc filing was 28 days too late under any view of the case. It is not however intended to decide the validity of such order had it been filed as of the right time. There being no bill of exceptions no other question can be adjudicated. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed with damage. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 583, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-christmas-kyctapp-1868.