74 U.S. 564
19 L.Ed. 227
7 Wall. 564
December Term, 1868
IN this case, which came on error to the Circuit Court for Louisiana, it appeared that the only ruling of the court, to be found in the record, was a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of money. There was no question raised on the pleadings; no bill of exceptions; no instructions or ruling of the court.
There was what purported to be a statement of facts, signed by the judge, found in the record. It was filed more than two months after the writ of error was allowed and filed in the court, and nearly a month after the citation was issued by the judge. It did not appear to have been filed by consent of parties.
The case was submitted by Mr. Janin for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Durant, contra, pointing out the peculiarity of the record.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
To permit the judge to make a statement of facts, on which the case shall be heard here, after the case is removed to this court by the service of the writ of error, or even after it is issued, would place the rights of parties who have judgments of record, entirely in the power of the judge, without hearing and without remedy. The statement of facts, filed without consent of the parties, must be treated as a nullity; and, as there is nothing on which error of the court below can be predicated, the judgment must be