Case ID: ala_48/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PETERS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RYALL vs. MAIX & CO.
    [MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL.]
    1. Appeal; wkenwill not be dismissed. — An appeal regularly and properly taken from a final judgment will not be dismissed, because a bill of exceptions contained in the record does not appear to bave been signed in term time, nor in ten days after adjournment of court in pursuance of ■written agreement of counsel.
    
      This was a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case. The grounds of the motion are fully set forth in the opinion denying the motion.
    J. T. Jones, for motion.
    Eugene McOaa, contra.
    
   PETERS, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal taken in this case, because it does not appear that the bill of exceptions was signed by the presiding judge before the adjournment of the court at which the exceptions were taken, nor in ten days afterwards by consent of counsel in writing. — Rev. Code, § 2760. Such a defect in the record does not vitiate the appeal, when it appears that there has been a final judgment in the ease in the court below, and that the appeal has been otherwise regularly taken, as is the case here. — Ref. Code, §§ 3485, 3488, 4420, 4421»

The motion is denied, with costs.