TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mills v. Simmonds

Mills v. Simmonds, 10 Ind. 464 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 19, 1858
Judges
Davison
Citations
10 Ind. 464
Summary
APPEAL from the Allen Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Davison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Davison, J.

This was an action commenced by process of foreign attachment. Mills was the plaintiff below, and Simmonds the defendant. The complaint is upon an account consisting of various items, amounting in the aggregate to 1,794 dollars. Proper issues being made, the case was submitted to a jury, who found for the plaintiff 10 dollars. New trial refused, and judgment.

The record shows that the cause was tried on the 23d of February, 1853; and on that day a bill of exceptions was taken and filed. The bill, after stating the names of the parties, &c., proceeds—

“ The following evidence being before the jury, viz., three sets of depositions, the Court charged the jury as follows: (here insert the charge in the handwriting of the judge). To which the plaintiff objected. The Court overruled the objection, to which ruling the plaintiff excepted. And also, on said trial the* plaintiff requested the Court to give the following charge: (here insert in the handwriting of Jacoby). Which the Court refused to do, and the plaintiff excepted to said last ruling,” &c.

The clerk, in making a transcript of the record for this Court, has inserted what purport to be depositions given in evidence on the trial; also instructions given, and an instruction refused by the Court. But these alleged rulings are not properly before us; because, under the rules of practice, as they stood when these exceptions were taken, the clerk had no right to make such insertions in a bill of *465 exceptions, unless authorized to do so by agreement of the parties entered upon the record. The depositions, charges given, and charge refused should have been copied into the bill at the time it was signed by the judge. 4 Blackf. 19 . —6 id. 167 . — 7 id. 461. There being, then, no proper bill of exceptions upon which to found the assigned errors, the appeal must be dismissed.

L. C. Jacoby, for the appellant. D. H. Colerick, for the appellee.

Per Owriam. — The appeal is dismissed with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1872–1873: 21880–1881: 11882–1883: 11886–1887: 11890–1891: 11894–1895: 118722026peak 1872 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kesler v. Myers41 Ind. 543 (1873)
  2. Irwin v. Smith72 Ind. 482 (1880)
  3. Cosgrove v. Cosby86 Ind. 511 (1882)
  4. Roberts v. Bartlett26 Mo. App. 611 (1887)
  5. Seymour Woollen Factory Co. v. Brodhecker28 N.E. 185 (Ind. 1891)
  6. Myers v. Roberts35 Fla. 255 (1895)

Most recent

  1. Myers v. Roberts35 Fla. 255 (1895)
  2. Seymour Woollen Factory Co. v. Brodhecker28 N.E. 185 (Ind. 1891)
  3. Roberts v. Bartlett26 Mo. App. 611 (1887)
  4. Cosgrove v. Cosby86 Ind. 511 (1882)
  5. Irwin v. Smith72 Ind. 482 (1880)
  6. Kesler v. Myers41 Ind. 543 (1873)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Huff v. Gilbert, 4 Blackf. 19 (1835) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list