Taylor v. Boughner

West Virginia Supreme Court

Taylor v. Boughner

16 W. Va. 327, 1880 W. Va. LEXIS 30

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 27, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 16 W. Va. 327 (Taylor v. Boughner) 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

Taylor v. Boughner, 16 W. Va. 327, 1880 W. Va. LEXIS 30 (W. Va. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Moore, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The Court is of opinion that the bill of exceptions, neither setting forth the writing obligatory which is the foundation of the suit, nor the imperfect copy of the same as offered in evidence by the defendants and rejected by the court, is so unintelligible as to render it impossible for this Court to say that the defendants were prejudiced by such rejection. The party complaining, in the Appellate Court, of the rejection of evidence by the court below, must state the facts or evidence in his bill of exceptions, from which it must appear affirmatively, to the Appellate Court, that he was prejudiced by the rejection of the evidence. The defendants having failed in this particular, the Appellate Court cannot say that the circuit court erred Ky rejecting the paper-writing offered by the defendants.

If the writing sued upon, and the imperfect copy tendered by the defendants, had been both set forth in the bill of exceptions, it is not improbable, that it would thereby have appeared that the ruling, by the court rejecting the imperfect copy, could not have been prejudicial to the defendants, as the testimony of the witness, Phelps, might perhaps have been thereby strengthened. It is therefore impossible for this Court to say that the circuit court erred to the prejudice of the defendants by its rulings.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed with costs and damages according to law.

The Other Judges Concurred.

Judgment Aeeirmed.

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

Moore, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The Court is of opinion that the bill of exceptions, neither setting forth the writing obligatory which is the foundation of the suit, nor the imperfect copy of the same as offered in evidence by the defendants and rejected by the court, is so unintelligible as to render it impossible for this Court to say that the defendants were prejudiced by such rejection. The party complaining, in the Appellate Court, of the rejection of evidence by the court below, must state the facts or evidence in his bill of exceptions, from which it must appear affirmatively, to the Appellate Court, that he was prejudiced by the rejection of the evidence. The defendants having failed in this particular, the Appellate Court cannot say that the circuit court erred Ky rejecting the paper-writing offered by the defendants.

If the writing sued upon, and the imperfect copy tendered by the defendants, had been both set forth in the bill of exceptions, it is not improbable, that it would thereby have appeared that the ruling, by the court rejecting the imperfect copy, could not have been prejudicial to the defendants, as the testimony of the witness, Phelps, might perhaps have been thereby strengthened. It is therefore impossible for this Court to say that the circuit court erred to the prejudice of the defendants by its rulings.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed with costs and damages according to law.

The Other Judges Concurred.

Judgment Aeeirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 W. Va. 327, 1880 W. Va. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-boughner-wva-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack