Case ID: ariz_3/html/0348-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SLOAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civil No. 260.
    Filed January 26, 1892.]
    [29 Pac. 15.]
    HENRY A. SMITH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B. BLACKMORE, Defendant and Appellee.
    1. Appeal and Errob^-Bill op Exceptions—What Constitutes.—A paper purporting to be an agreed statement of tbe ease, if presented to tbe trial judge, and by bim settled and signed, as required by tbe statutes, and filed within the time allowed, can be considered a bill of exceptions, under authority of Putnam v. Putnam, ante, p. 182, 24 Pae. 320.
    2. Same—Agreed Statement—Signing—Bev. Stats. Ariz. 1887, Par; 874, Cited.—Tbe agreed statement of tbe case, permitted by statute, supra, must be signed and allowed by the trial judge, or it will be stricken from the record.
    3. Same—Becord—Absence of 'Bill of Exceptions and Statement of Eacts-—Scope of Beview—Judgment-Boll.—Where there is no bill of exceptions, statement of facts or motion for new trial in the record, there is nothing to review except the judgment-roll, and, when there is no error therein, the judgment will be affirmed.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Cochise. "William H.' Barnes, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    Ben Goodrich, for Appellant.
    George G. Berry, for Appellee.
   SLOAN, J.

The record in this case is defective. No bill of exceptions, statement of facts, or motion for new trial appears therein. There was signed by the attorneys of record, and filed among the papers copied into the transcript, a paper purporting to be an agreed statement of the case and facts proven at the trial, permitted under paragraph 874 of the Revised Statutes. This paper was probably meant to take the place of both a bill of exceptions and a statement of facts. It embodied some of the characteristics of a bill of exceptions; and, under the authority of Putnam v. Putnam, ante, p. 182, 24 Pac. Rep. 320, had it been presented to the trial judge and by him settled and signed, as required by the statutes, as well as filed within the time allowed, it could have been considered as such. It fell short of a proper bill of exceptions in each of these particulars. Nor can it be considered as a proper agreed statement of the case permitted under said paragraph 874, inasmuch as it was not allowed nor signed by the trial judge, as provided therein. No agreement of counsel can take away the right, nor make it any less the duty, of the judge, under the statute, to approve and sign the statement before it becomes a part of the record. It is entitled to become a part of the record only by virtue of the allowance and signature of the judge, and, if these are wanting in any agreed statement attempted to be made and filed under said paragraph, it must be rejected as improperly in the record. There is nothing, therefore, in the record to review except the jndgment-roll, and, as no error appears therein, the judgment must he affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Gooding, C. J., and Kibbey, J., concur.