Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court


No. 63

Argued: Decided: November 6, 1893

The following statement as to the allowance of the bill of exceptions is made in the brief of plaintiffs in error:

    'On December 17, 1887, the verdict was rendered, and 10 days' time allowed to present bill of exceptions. On the 24th day of December, 1887, the bill of exceptions was tendered and noted of record, and time allowed until the 20th of January, 1888, to complete the bill. The judge declined to sign the tendered bill, and on the 14th of January, 1888, extended the time to prepare another bill until the 15th of March, 1888. Before the 15th of March, 1888, another bill of exceptions was presented to the judge, who seemed to think it did not conform to his suggestions. Another order was entered, extending the time to May 15, 1888, to complete the bill of exceptions. Before that time expired, a third bill of exceptions was tendered to the court, the motion for new trial being disposed of at the same term. Other orders were made, extending the time within which to present a bill of exceptions to the 2d day of July, 1888. In December, 1888, counsel for plaintiffs in error made various efforts to have the counsel of the defendant in error present, but, owing to sickness, it was impracticable to do so until the bill of exceptions now before the court was signed, on April 1, 1889. The certificate of the judge shows all these facts, and that the counsel for plaintiffs in error continued to present bills of exception to the court and judge until the bill was signed by him and made a part of the record. The orders of extension and facts contained in the bill of exceptions show in this case that justice would be defeated if the bill were to be excluded from the record. Counsel for plaintiffs in error were assiduous and persistent in presenting and insisting upon the bill of exceptions until the court signed and made it a part of the record.'

[150 U.S. 156, 158]   Thos. F. Hargis, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.

The judgment is affirmed, for want of bill of exceptions seasonably allowed, upon the authority of Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U.S. 249 ; Jones v. Grover & Baker S. M. Co., 131 U. S. Append. cl; Bank v. Eldred, 143 U.S. 293 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 450; Glaspell v. Railroad Co., 144 U.S. 211 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 593; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U.S. 245 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 582. Judgment affirmed.

Copied to clipboard