Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 Neb. 83

Edwards v. Kearney

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1883

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1883-01-15

<p>Practice: bill or exceptions necessary. When it is sought to present to this court alleged errors, occurring upon the trial of a cause in the district court, a bill of exceptions, settled and signed as required by statute, is indispensably necessary, and no other paper, record, or showing can be made to take its place.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1931

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cobb, J.

¶1The bill of exceptions in this case having been stricken from the files of this court, in accordance with the opinion reported in 13 Neb., 502, the record is simply here for our examination without such bill.

¶2Where it is sought to present to this court alleged errors occurring at a trial in the district court, a bill of exceptions, settled and signed as required by law, is indispensably necessary. And while in a proper case, upon timely application, this court would by mandamus compel the signing of such a bill by a trial judge, yet no other paper, record, or showing can be made to take its place. There being no error assigned, other than those depending upon the bill of exceptions, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/14/neb/83 · .json · Public domain