Samuel W. Peck Co. v. Rose

Second Circuit

Samuel W. Peck Co. v. Rose

186 F. 1023, 108 C.C.A. 664, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4185

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided April 17, 1911·No. No. 276·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An examination of the bill of exceptions shows that certain papers, marked “Exhibit MM” wore received in evidence. The record does not contain these exhibits. We think that the record is incomplete without them, and that they should be supplied. If counsel cannot agree upon copies thereof, the trial judge should certify to correct copies of the papers introduced at the trial and marked “Exhibit MM,” which copies should be returned to the clerk of this court and printed by him as part of the record.

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

PER CURIAM.

An examination of the bill of exceptions shows that certain papers, marked “Exhibit MM” wore received in evidence. The record does not contain these exhibits. We think that the record is incomplete without them, and that they should be supplied. If counsel cannot agree upon copies thereof, the trial judge should certify to correct copies of the papers introduced at the trial and marked “Exhibit MM,” which copies should be returned to the clerk of this court and printed by him as part of the record.

Samuel W. Peck Co. v. Rose, 186 F. 1023, 108 C.C.A. 664, 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4185 (2d Cir. 1911).

Pincite

186 F. 1023 (Samuel W. Peck Co. v. Rose) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.