Case ID: app-dc_39/html/0482-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Van Orsdel", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EDWARDS v. FOX.
    Appear and Error; Birr op Exceptions.
    A bill of exceptions which unnecessarily rehearses testimony in violation» of a court rule will be stricken from the record, especially where it. co-uld have incorporated, by reference, the record in a companion; case involving the same facts.
    No. 2438.
    Submitted November 7, 1912.
    Decided January 6, 1913.
    
      Hearing oil motion by the appellee to strike the bill of exceptions from the record on an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon verdict in an action on a promissory note.
    
      Sustained.
    
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. J. J. Darlington for the motion.
    
      Mr. W. W. Millón and Mr. R. E. L. Smith opposed.
   Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This cause and No. 2437 (First Nat. Bank of Dexter v. Fox, ante, p. 477) were tried together, this suit being upon another of the notes given Staples for the purchase price of the Yacht Idler.

A motion was also made in this case to strike out the bill of exceptions and dismiss the appeal. Sec. 4 of rule 5 of this court is more flagrantly violated in this case'than in No. 2437. The evidence of about forty witnesses is identically the same in both cases, but instead of referring in the record in this case to the evidence preserved in the bill of exceptions in the companion case, the whole mass of evidence, a large part of which is equally useless in both cases on appeal, is embraced in a separate bill of exceptions.

The motion to strike the hill of exceptions from the record is sustained.

On January 8, 1913, appellee moved to affirm judgment.

January 13, 1913, appellant moved to postpone action on motion to affirm.