Sanders v. Commercial Investment Trust

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Sanders v. Commercial Investment Trust

4 Tenn. App. 462, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 199

DecidedApril 14, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Tenn. App. 462 (Sanders v. Commercial Investment Trust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanders v. Commercial Investment Trust, 4 Tenn. App. 462, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 199 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, J.

This is a replevin suit involving the right of possession to one Studebaker automobile. The, case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed because the record contains no motion for a new trial which we can notice. A minute order recites that a motion for new trial was made and overruled. On page 9 of the transcript there appears a motion for a new trial, which doesn’t appear to have been filed in the lower court. This motion, however, was not spread upon the minutes of the trial court, nor was it included in the bill of exceptions. It therefore forms no part of the record.

In Chattanooga Iron & Coal Co. v. Hansard, 143 Tenn., 553, 226 S. W., 1045, it was, held a written motion for new trial with the transcript which appears to have been filed in the court below, but was not spread upon the minutes of the trial court, and was not included in the bill of exceptions, forms no part of the record, and the action of the court thereon can not be considered. In the Han-sard case, the Supreme Court cited and approved Railroad v. Edgerton, 98 Tenn., 541, 41 S. W., 1035; Railroad v. Johnson, 114 Tenn., 632, 88 S. W., 166; Box Co. v. Gregory, 119 Tenn., 537, 105 S. W., 350.

It has been held in Tennessee since Allen v. State, M. & Y., 294, that a memorandum of a motion made below and sent up with the transcript cannot be considered unless made a part of the bill of exceptions. The general rule in other jurisdictions is that a motion *463 for a new trial must be incorporated into tihe bill of exceptions in order to be preserved for review on appeal. 2 R. C. L., 127.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Defendant will pay the cost, for which execution will issue.

Heiskell and Senter, JJ., concur.

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

OWEN, J.

This is a replevin suit involving the right of possession to one Studebaker automobile. The, case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appealed. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed because the record contains no motion for a new trial which we can notice. A minute order recites that a motion for new trial was made and overruled. On page 9 of the transcript there appears a motion for a new trial, which doesn’t appear to have been filed in the lower court. This motion, however, was not spread upon the minutes of the trial court, nor was it included in the bill of exceptions. It therefore forms no part of the record.

In Chattanooga Iron & Coal Co. v. Hansard, 143 Tenn., 553, 226 S. W., 1045, it was, held a written motion for new trial with the transcript which appears to have been filed in the court below, but was not spread upon the minutes of the trial court, and was not included in the bill of exceptions, forms no part of the record, and the action of the court thereon can not be considered. In the Han-sard case, the Supreme Court cited and approved Railroad v. Edgerton, 98 Tenn., 541, 41 S. W., 1035; Railroad v. Johnson, 114 Tenn., 632, 88 S. W., 166; Box Co. v. Gregory, 119 Tenn., 537, 105 S. W., 350.

It has been held in Tennessee since Allen v. State, M. & Y., 294, that a memorandum of a motion made below and sent up with the transcript cannot be considered unless made a part of the bill of exceptions. The general rule in other jurisdictions is that a motion *463 for a new trial must be incorporated into tihe bill of exceptions in order to be preserved for review on appeal. 2 R. C. L., 127.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Defendant will pay the cost, for which execution will issue.

Heiskell and Senter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Tenn. App. 462, 1927 Tenn. App. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-commercial-investment-trust-tennctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack