Warner v. Kelley

Decided January 13, 1880

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1880-01-13

<p>Practice—Bill of exceptions must be filed in apt time.—Where the bill of exceptions shows upon its face that it was not presented to the judge for signing until after the expiration of the time allowed therefor, it will, on motion, be stricken from, the record; in such cases the filing of the bill of exceptions makes it no part of the record. To become such it must be filed in apt time.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1886

1 state decisions

Relies on Hunt v. Tinkham · Burst v. Wayne · Satonstall v. Canal Commissioners

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-01-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This case comes up on a motion filed by appellees to strike the bill of exceptions filed in this cause from the record, and affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. The bill of exceptions shows upon its face that it was not presented to the judge who tried the cause below, until five days had expired after the same should have been presented in order to comply with the terms upon which the appeal was granted. In such a case the filing of the hill of exceptions makes it no part of the record. To become a part of the record the hill must be filed in apt time.

¶2Hance v. Miller, 21 Ill. 639; Burst v. Wayne, 13 Ill. 599; Satonstall v. Canal Commissioners, 13 Ill. 705.

¶3The motion must he sustained to the extent of striking the hill of exceptions from the record.