Case ID: neb_14/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Cattle, Sr., plaintiff and appellee, v. M. D. Haddox et al., defendants and appellants.
    1. Referee: bill op exceptions. A trial was had before a referee, who made a report, and the testimony and exceptions taken before him were returned to the court, but not signed. Exceptions were filed to the report, which were overruled, and judgment entered on the report, and the judge signed the bill of exceptions taken before the referee. Held, That as no objection was made in the district court to the bill of exceptions because not signed by the referee, the objection will not be considered by the supreme court.
    2. Bill of Exceptions. The fact that the certificate of the judge does not show that the bill of exceptions contains all the testimony is not ground for quashing the bill.
    8. -. Where a bill of exceptions purporting to contain all the testimony is submitted to the adverse party for amendment, and such party certifies that he has no amendments to propose to the same, the court will presume that such bill contains all the evidence, notwithstanding the certificate may not fully so certify.
    Motion to quash bill of exceptions.
    
      Norval Brothers, for the motion.
    
      Sibbett & Fuller and Burr & Kelly, contra.
   By the Court.

This case was referred to a referee, who, after due notice to the parties, heard the testimony and made a report of his findings to the court. The testimony was taken by the court reporter, apparently by consent, as it stated that fees were paid by the parties equally. The bill of exceptions was served upon the attorneys of the appellee, and their certificate that they had no amendments to propose is in the record. Exceptions were filed to the report of the referee, which were overruled, and judgment entered on the report. The judge thereupon signed the bill of exceptions, but it is not signed by tbe referee. The appellee now moves to quasb the bill, first, because it was not allowed and signed by the referee, and second, because it does not purport to contain all the testimony. No objection was made to the bill in the district court, and one of the grounds of objection to the report in that court was, that the findings were against the weight of evidence. The bill was before the district court without objection, and it is too late to raise the objection for the first time in this court. A referee should sign a bilj of exceptions in any case tried before him, if so required by either party; but objections to the bill or its form must be made in the district court, and unless so made cannot be considered here. The second ground of the motion, even if true, would not justify the court in quashing the bill, although in a proper case it might refuse to set aside the finding as being against the weight of testimony. But where the attorneys of the adverse party, when called on to propose amendments, certify on a bill which purports to contain the testimony, that they have no amendments to propose, the court will presume that the bill contains all the testimony. The motion must be overruled.

Motion overruled.