Shipman v. Watson

214 P.2d 155, 67 Nev. 74, 1950 Nev. LEXIS 44
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 7, 1950
DocketNo. 3580
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 P.2d 155 (Shipman v. Watson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shipman v. Watson, 214 P.2d 155, 67 Nev. 74, 1950 Nev. LEXIS 44 (Neb. 1950).

Opinions

OPINION

By the Court,

McNamee, District Judge:

By this proceeding in mandamus the petitioner seeks to compel the trial court to settle certain proposed statements as bills of exceptions.

After a jury trial resulting in a money judgment in favor of respondent, petitioner in proper time served and filed three purported bills of exceptions. One consists of the reporter’s official transcript of the trial proceedings which requires no settlement by the court and with which we are not now concerned. The other two are instruments in narrative form relating to orders of the trial court made before and after the trial. The respondent moved to strike these last two instruments. Their nature and the reason the trial judge refused to settle them as bills of exceptions appear from the district judge’s decision on the said motion to strike, which reads in part as follows: “Defendants having filed in addition to reporter’s transcript two separate purported bills for settlement, both in extended narrative form, and the matter having been submitted on plaintiff’s motion to strike the latter purported bills of exception.

“And the Court giving consideration to the motion to strike as timely objections and without passing on the propriety of such motion in proper case is of the opinion that such bills of exception in narrative form, in such great detail, and bringing to the attention of the Supreme Court only the party’s version of the proceedings, rulings, objections and exceptions, should, we think, be frowned upon, particularly in a reported case; [76]*76even where party has properly preserved his right to the alternative form of bill of exceptions, which is doubtful here; and where by long history of practice in our State proper matters for consideration of the Supreme Court, which are outside the judgment roll are, and we think should be, brought to the attention of the Supreme Court in a bill of exceptions by certification of the Clerk of the papers, orders and minutes which may properly be certified, and other pertinent matters be brought to the attention of the Supreme Court briefly, concisely and accurately, which by stipulation of counsel or by determination of Court might be signed as a proper bill of exceptions, presenting for consideration motions, objections, rulings and exceptions.

“Feeling that the two purported bills of exception are not properly bills of exceptions in view of the foregoing, and giving consideration to the motion to strike as objections thereto, it is the Decision of the Court that we cannot settle and sign the same as a bill of exceptions.”

The Nevada legislature by section 9385.81, Nevada Compiled Laws, Supplement 1931-1941 has provided in detail the manner of making up and preparing bills of exceptions.1

[77]*77The transcript of proceedings certified by the court reporter together with all other matters, exhibits, motions, papers, or orders, to be incorporated therein, may be served and filed, subject to settlement, as a bill of exceptions. Or, as an alternative, a bill of exceptions may consist of the point of exception particularly stated, delivered to the judge in writing or written down by the clerk.

There is nothing in the statutes limiting the number of bills of exceptions a party may file, but N.C.L.1931-1941 Supp., sec. 9385.84, expressly provides that bills of exceptions must be prepared, served and filed as provided by the act relating thereto and not otherwise.

It is respondent’s contention that the two proposed [78]*78bills of exceptions in narrative form have not been prepared according to the statutory requirements and that therefore his action refusing to settle them as bills of exceptions was proper. With this we agree.

These questioned documents narrate certain proceedings of the trial court which are assigned as error, but nowhere does it appear that petitioner, as required by statute, particularly stated his exception to the court’s rulings complained of, either by a writing delivered to the judge or by having them written down by the clerk.

The obvious purpose of such statutory requirement is to furnish the court an opportunity to make the point [79]*79of the exception conformable to the truth, some time during and before the conclusion of the trial, and while the facts are fresh in mind. For counsel, intending to rely on the alternative method of preparing a bill of exceptions, merely to object to or except to a ruling of the court without giving any reason therefor and without stating the point of the objection with particularity, or for him to remain silent after an adverse ruling, affords the court no opportunity to make and preserve a true and complete record of that specific court’s action which might later be asserted as an assignment of error in a bill of exceptions prepared under the said alternative method.

March 2, 1950.

We conclude that the two documents offered to the trial judge for settlement as bills of exceptions long after the happening of the events complained of, and consisting of assignments of error based only on petitioner’s version in narrative form of the proceedings below, which at that late date could not, with any guarantee of certainty, be made complete and accurate and in conformity with the truth, were not prepared, served and filed as provided by law, and, therefore, it was not incumbent upon the trial judge to settle and sign the same as bills of exceptions.

The petition for a writ, of mandate is denied.

Horsey, C. J., and Badt, J., concur. Eather, J., being absent on account of illness, the Governor commissioned Honorable Frank McNamee, judge of the Eighth Judicial District, to act in his place.

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

Related

Graff v. Shipman Bros. Transfer Co.
222 P.2d 497 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 P.2d 155, 67 Nev. 74, 1950 Nev. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shipman-v-watson-nev-1950.