LEFTWITCH
v.
LECANU
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A promissory note holder sued an indorser in the Circuit Court for Louisiana, and the defendant objected to the admission of a notary's certificate indicating that the indorser had been notified of the note's dishonor. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment because the plaintiff failed to properly incorporate the certificate into the bill of exceptions—it was not annexed to the bill or clearly identified therein, and merely being attached to the pleading did not make it part of the bill of exceptions. The Court established that papers constituting part of a bill of exceptions must be either incorporated into the bill's body or annexed with clear identification to avoid ambiguity in the appellate record.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
The only allegation of error in this record relates to a certificate of a notary public, that he had notified the in-dorsers of a promissory note of the dishonor of said note.
The bill of exceptions states that “ plaintiff’ offered in evidence an instrument in writing on the back of the protest, purporting to be a certificate of the notary, that he had notified the indorser of the note, which is hereunto annexed for reference as a part of this bill, to which certificate counsel for defendant objected,” &e. bio such paper is found annexed to the bill of exceptions, nor in any manner referred to, or marked, or identified as being a part of the bill of exceptions, or as the paper which was offered in evidence. The suit being in the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana was commenced by petition, and according to the practice in such cases, there is annexed to the petition a copy of the note sued on, and of the protest and certificate of notice to the indorsers. But this is merely a copy attached to, and a part of the pleading, and is certainly not the paper which was offered in evidence. It may or may not he a perfect copy of that paper; but whether it is so or not, it is certain that it does not become a part of the bill of exceptions by being attached to the pleading.
If a paper which is to constitute a part of a bill of exceptions, is not incorporated into the body of the bill, it must be annexed to it, or so marked by letter, number, or other means of identification mentioned in the bill, as to leave no doubt, when found in the record, that it is the one referred to in the bill of exceptions.
There is nothing of the kind here; and as we must presume the ruling of the court to be right, in the absence of .anything showing it to be wrong, the judgment must be
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Land Inv. Co. v. Williams, 83 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1922)…exceptions, and the exhibits so attached must be so authenticated as that there may be no doubt of their identity with the documents referred to and described in the bill of exceptions. 2 R. C. L. p. 148; 4 C. J. §1836, p. 236; Leftwitch v. Lecanu, 4 Wall. 187, L. Ed. 388; Humbarger v. Humbarger, 72 Kan. 412, 83 Pac. Rep. 1095, 115 Am. St. Rep. 204; O’Neil v. Chicago, R. I. etc. Co., 66 Neb. 638, 92 N. W. Rep. 731, 1 Ann. Cas. 337, 60 L. R. A. 443; Williams v. Daly, 33 Ill. App. 454; Moses v. Loomis, 156…
-
Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Mellon, 276 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1928)…it by way of identifying them as intended to be part of it, can not be treated as such. Bank v. Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19, 29; Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409, 411 ; Jones v. Buckell, 104 U. S. 554; Hanna v. Maas, 122 U. S. 24. But in Leftwitch v. Lecanu, 4 Wall. 187, on page 189, Mr. Justice Miller, while exemplifying this principle, said in rejecting a bill of exceptions: “ If a paper which is to constitute a part of a bill of exceptions, is not incorporated into the body of the bill, [*394] it must be annexe…
-
United States v. Rogers, 120 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1941)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence