Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/81700/young-vs-martin
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:19:29+00:00

Document:
1. The entries of a clerk of a territorial district court stating in a general way the proceedings had in that court, and that they were excepted to by counsel, do not present the action of the court and the exceptions taken in such form that they can be considered by this Court.
2. It is no part of the duty of the clerk to note in his entries the exceptions taken or to note any other proceedings of counsel except as they are preliminary to or the basis of the orders or judgment of the court.
3. To be of any avail, exceptions must be drawn up so as to present distinctly the ruling of the court upon the points raised, and must be signed and sealed by the presiding judge. Unless so signed and sealed, they do not constitute any part of the record which can be considered by an appellate court.
4. When parties, after a demurrer interposed by them to an answer is overruled, instead of relying upon its sufficiency, file a replication, they thereby abandon the demurrer, and it ceases henceforth to be a part of the record.
Court on appeal, by obtaining from the clerk of the court, making or rendering such order, judgment, or decree, a complete transcript of the record of the case, which shall be filed with the clerk of the supreme court."
"The hearing of the supreme court shall be upon the record and argument of counsel; and the district court is hereby required to sign all bills of exceptions taken to its rulings, decisions, or charge to the jury, which shall be incorporated into and constitute part of the record of the cause."
"When the judgment, final order, or decree shall be reversed, either in whole or in part, the supreme court may render such judgment as the court below should have rendered, or remand the cause to the court below to proceed according to the decision of the supreme court."
"Plaintiffs' counsel filed demurrer to defendant's answer, which was argued by Messrs. Baskin and Hempstead for plaintiffs, and Messrs. Marshall and Carter, for defendant. Pleadings submitted to the court and held under advisement."
"Court overruled demurrer filed by plaintiffs to defendant's answer, and ruled that defendant has a lien on the goods of E. R. Young & Sons, now in possession of defendant, for freight, both by the McWhurt train and the Irwine train. "
"Plaintiffs ordered to reply as though demurrer had not been filed. C. H. Hempstead Esq., counsel for plaintiff, excepted to the ruling of the court."
"C. H. Hempstead Esq., made a verbal motion praying for judgment and damages on the pleadings. Motion argued by Messrs. Baskin and Hempstead for plaintiffs, and Messrs. Marshall and Carter for defendant."
"Pleadings submitted to the court and held under advisement."
"Motion for judgment overruled. Rulings excepted to by plaintiffs' counsel."
The supreme court of the territory dismissed the appeal, and the plaintiff took this writ of error.
There is no evidence contained in the transcript that any exceptions were taken to the action of the district court of the territory, except such as appears from the minutes of the clerk. These minutes are mere memoranda, stating, in the briefest and most general manner, the proceedings had in court. They do not purport to give the particulars of the proceedings, but only to describe their character. They were made to preserve an account of the general order of business of the court, and to assist the clerk in the subsequent preparation of the formal record. In this case they state that, on a day mentioned, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a demurrer, which was argued and taken under advisement; that, on the subsequent day, the demurrer was overruled, and the plaintiffs excepted. And, also that afterwards, on a certain day, the plaintiffs' counsel made a verbal motion for judgment and damages on the pleadings; that the motion was argued and, on the following day, overruled, and that the ruling was excepted to.
the grounds upon which the motion was made or denied are not given. The motion was not made at the trial, and, as counsel suggests, it may have been denied on a point of practice, without respect to the merits.
Revised Statutes of Utah territory, 1866, p. 66.
Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 119; Leveringe v. Dayton, 4 Washington's C.C. 698.
Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How. 427.
Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 92; Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. 42; Brown v. Saratoga Railroad Co., 18 N.Y. 495.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.