Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Colo. 429

Fick v. Crook

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 15, 1900

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1900-04-15

This action was commenced by appellee, as contestor, in the court below, against appellant, as contestee, to contest tbe election of the latter to the office of county commissioner for the third commissioners’ district, of Gilpin county. From a judgment in favor of contestor, the contestee appeals. The condition of the original bill of exceptions was such, that none of the questions which appellant sought to raise could be reviewed in this court.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1908

2 state decisions

Relies on Martin v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Gabbert

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The matters incorporated in the supplemental bill of exceptions are not part of the record proper; therefore, unless preserved by the former, there is nothing before us to consider. An amended or supplemental bill contemplates that it contains something to supply defects in, or in aid of, the original. Its proper office is to perfect that which is imperfectly done, but not to originate something entirely new. The original bill contained none of the matters in the supplemental one, either in whole or in part, hence, they do not amend or complete anything in the original bill, but partially stated therein. They were not omitted from the original by mistake, or intended to be incorporated therein. In the present state of the record, the supplemental bill is, in effect, a new one. If appellant had never attempted to obtain a bill of exceptions, he would be in no different position with respect to the supplemental one from what he now is. We are, therefore, of the opinion that what is contained in the supplemental bill cannot be considered as an admissible amendment of the original. The time for tendering and filing the latter has expired, and the motion to strike must be sustained. Hayne’s New Trial and Appeal, § 160, p. 477; Martin v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Co., 53 Ark. 250.

¶3There being nothing presented for determination by the appeal, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

¶4Affirmed.

/27/colo/429 · .json · Public domain