Tell City Canning Co. v. Wilbur

Indiana Court of Appeals

Tell City Canning Co. v. Wilbur

93 N.E. 174, 46 Ind. App. 550, 1910 Ind. App. LEXIS 129

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 1910

DocketNo. 7,151

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 93 N.E. 174 (Tell City Canning Co. v. Wilbur) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tell City Canning Co. v. Wilbur, 93 N.E. 174, 46 Ind. App. 550, 1910 Ind. App. LEXIS 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Rabb, J.

1. The only question attempted to be raised by this appeal involves the correctness of certain instructions given by the court upon its own motion to the jury. The instructions complained of are not brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. They are not properly in the record under the provisions of §561 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 652, because they are not authenticated by the signature of the judge, as required by the provisions of this section. Strong v. Ross (1905), 36 Ind. App. 174.

2. 3. They are not properly in the record under the provisions of §691 Burns 1908, §650 R. S. 1881, under which section it is manifest they are attempted to be brought into the record, because the record fails to disclose an order of the court making the instructions a part of the record. There is a recital that they are made part of the record, but no order of the court authorizing it appears. The question upon which a reversal is sought is therefore not presented. Other errors are assigned, but not discussed, and are waived.

Judgment of the court below affirmed.

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

Rabb, J.

1. The only question attempted to be raised by this appeal involves the correctness of certain instructions given by the court upon its own motion to the jury. The instructions complained of are not brought into the record by a bill of exceptions. They are not properly in the record under the provisions of §561 Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 652, because they are not authenticated by the signature of the judge, as required by the provisions of this section. Strong v. Ross (1905), 36 Ind. App. 174.

2. 3. They are not properly in the record under the provisions of §691 Burns 1908, §650 R. S. 1881, under which section it is manifest they are attempted to be brought into the record, because the record fails to disclose an order of the court making the instructions a part of the record. There is a recital that they are made part of the record, but no order of the court authorizing it appears. The question upon which a reversal is sought is therefore not presented. Other errors are assigned, but not discussed, and are waived.

Judgment of the court below affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 N.E. 174, 46 Ind. App. 550, 1910 Ind. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tell-city-canning-co-v-wilbur-indctapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack