REED
v.
GARDNER
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.
It has been frequently held by this court, that in passing upon the questions presented in a bill of exceptions, it will not look beyond the bill itself.* The pleadings, and the statements of the bill, the verdict, and the judgment, are the only matters that are properly before the court. Depositions, exhibits, or certificates not contained in the bill, cannot be considered by the court. The case of Flanders v. Tweed, was exceptional. The court intend to adhere to this practice.
Under this rule there is then nothing whatever in the present case for the court to pass upon.
It is impossible upon a record such as this is, that we should know whether the charge is correct or erroneous, or .whether the refusals to charge as requested were justified, or whether they were improper. As already said, there is absolutely nothing presented to this court for consideration.
Judgment aeeirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Mellon, 276 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1928)…well settled that exhibits found in the record, or even annexed to a bill of exceptions, when not attached to 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 cons…
-
New York v. Madison, 123 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1887)…ich the instructions apply." "The proof of the facts which make the charge erroneous must be distinctly set forth, or it must appear that evidence was given tending to prove them." See also United States v. Morgan, 11 How. 153, 158; Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409; Jones v. Buckell, 104 U.S. 554; Phœnix Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U.S. 183, 196. Upon the record, as it comes to us we find no error, and the judgment is consequently Affirmed.…
-
Jones v. Buckell, 104 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1881)…ined, of, the case presents-to us only an abstract proposition of law which may or -may not have ¡been stated by the . .court in a way to be injurious to the plaintiffs in error. Such a proposition we are not required to consider. ,-Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409. Judgment affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence