Shipherd v. White

Exceptions to a judge’s or Court’s opinion should be noted down upon the trial, or they cannot be used in a bjll of exceptions. On settling the bill, notice pf time and place when pnd where this js to be done, should he given to the defendant in error ,¡ Otherwise the judge or cptirt will not be compelled, by mandamus, to execute the bill. And if executed, it will be set aside. Whenever a bill of exceptions is signed, under Circumstances wherein the supreme court X«M>uld npt cpmppl its exeputipn by mandamus, it will be set aside on motioi}.

These causes liad been tried in the Common Pleas of Washington county—the first ip December term, 1819—the second in August term, 1820—and immediately removed, by writ of error, to this Court, In the first cause, file decision was so late in term that the attorney for Shipherd fy Storrs had no time to reduce a bill of exceptions to writing, though they mentioned their exceptions on the trial; but on thq intimation of one or more of the Judges, that this would be ' ■ ' sufficient, he drew and took the bill with him at the next term, and gave it to While?a attorney for inspection, with a request that he would amend it, so that the draft and amend-: merits might be submitted together. He requested time to look at his minutes, which he said he had not with him, promised to amend the bill the first opportunity, and retained it for that purpose. He was repeatedly solicited to propose amendments, which he omitted to do, and ruled the plaintiffs to assign errors while he had possession of the draft. In neither of the causes were the exceptions reduced to writing on the trial, and both bills were finally settled and signed by three of the Judges, after they had gone out of office, and without giving any notice of the time and place of their being so settled to the attorneys of White and Schult respectively. An issue of in nullo est erratum, having been joined, and th.e causes noticed for argument at this term,