Trittipo v. Trittipo

Indiana Court of Appeals

Trittipo v. Trittipo

62 N.E. 85, 28 Ind. App. 80, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 177

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 12, 1901

DocketNo. 4,023

StatusPublished

This text of 62 N.E. 85 (Trittipo v. Trittipo) 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

Trittipo v. Trittipo, 62 N.E. 85, 28 Ind. App. 80, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Henley, J.

The only questions presented by this appeal arise out of the ruling of the trial court in overruling ap[81]*81pellant’s motion for a new trial. All of sucli questions as are here presented, under the assignment of error that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, require that the evidence adduced upon the trial be in the record. Appellant has attempted to bring the evidence into the record under section 6 of an act of the legislature of 181)9. Acts 1899, p. 384. The Supreme Court has, since this appeal was taken, held section 6 of said act to be invalid and inoperative. See Adams v. State, 156 Ind. 596.

In the case at bar, appellant did not attempt to bring the evidence into the record by bill of exceptions,' and if the reporter’s transcript was in form a bill of exceptions, still the record affirmatively shows that the transcript of the evidence which was filed by the reporter as such transcript was not filed in'’ the clerk’s office after its signature by the judge of the trial court.

The evidence not being in the record, no question is presented. Judgment affirmed.

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

Henley, J.

The only questions presented by this appeal arise out of the ruling of the trial court in overruling ap[81]*81pellant’s motion for a new trial. All of sucli questions as are here presented, under the assignment of error that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, require that the evidence adduced upon the trial be in the record. Appellant has attempted to bring the evidence into the record under section 6 of an act of the legislature of 181)9. Acts 1899, p. 384. The Supreme Court has, since this appeal was taken, held section 6 of said act to be invalid and inoperative. See Adams v. State, 156 Ind. 596.

In the case at bar, appellant did not attempt to bring the evidence into the record by bill of exceptions,' and if the reporter’s transcript was in form a bill of exceptions, still the record affirmatively shows that the transcript of the evidence which was filed by the reporter as such transcript was not filed in'’ the clerk’s office after its signature by the judge of the trial court.

The evidence not being in the record, no question is presented. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.E. 85, 28 Ind. App. 80, 1901 Ind. App. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trittipo-v-trittipo-indctapp-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack