Case ID: neb_50/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Irvine, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sarah C. Smith v. William H. Beagle.
    Filed January 19, 1897.
    No. 6993.
    Transcript for Review. The filing of the original pleadings and other documents belonging to the records of the district court does not take the place of the certified transcript which the statute requires as a foundation for appellate proceedings, even though the parties may stipulate to that effect. Moore v. Waterman, 40 Neb., 498, followed.
    Error from the district court of Valley county. Tried below before Harrison, J.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Coffin & Stone and C. A. Munn, for plaintiff in error.
    
      A. M. Robbins, contra.
    
   Irvine, C.

We have in this case, properly authenticated, a bill of exceptions and a transcript of the verdict, motion for new trial, and judgment. In addition to this there is a bundle of loose papers which look as if they might be the original files from the office of the clerk of the district court, but not authenticated as such, and a stipulation of counsel that the original files may be used in lieu of a transcript. This does not comply with the statutes regulating proceedings in this court. (Moore v. Waterman, 40 Neb., 498; Bell v. Beller, 40 Neb., 501; School District v. Cooper, 44 Neb., 714; McDonald v. Grabow, 46 Neb., 406; Otis v. Butters, 46 Neb., 492; Peck v. Nebraska Loan & Trust Co., 50 Neb., 227.) Without a transcript of the pleadings we are unable to examine the evidence to ascertain whether it was sufficient to support the verdict, as we have no means of determining what was in issue. Nor have we the instructions before us for examination. All assignments of error relate to questions of this character.

Affirmed.

Harrison, J., not sitting.