¶1There was no bill of exceptions in this case, but we find in the transcript what purports to be an agreement between the Solicitor of the circuit where the trial was had and the counsel for several defendants in different cases of gaming, one of whom is named in the margin as W. H. Cobb, and it purports to have been agreed that the bill of exceptions taken in a case at the same term against one Gill, should be regarded as having been taken in each of the other cases, and so apply. The paper purporting to be an agreement, signed by the parties, is copied into the transcript as part of the record. But, independent of the absence of any minute entry to show that it was acknowledged by the parties in the Circuit Court and by order of that court made a part of the record, it may be discovered from the certificate of the clerk, though a little ambiguous, that it was not a part of the record. We unhesitatingly reject it. The judgment is affirmed.
19 Ala. 18
Cobb v. State
Decided January 15, 1851
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1851-01-15
<p>I, When the record contains no bill of exceptions, but only an agreement purporting to have been made between the Solicitor and the counsel for the defendant, that the bill of exceptions taken in another case should be regarded as having been taken in the case at bar, aud the minute entry does not show that the agreement was acknowledged by the parties in the Circuit Court, or made part of the record by an order of that court, the appellate court will reject the agreement.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1887
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1851-01-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →