Case Name: INTERSTATE LIFE & ACCIDENT CO. v. SPURLOCK
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1933-01-14
Citations: 16 Tenn. App. 250
Docket Number: 
Parties: INTERSTATE LIFE & ACCIDENT CO. v. SPURLOCK.
Judges: Paw, P. J.,' and DeWitt, J., concur.
Reporter: Tennessee Appeals Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 250–256

Head Matter:
INTERSTATE LIFE & ACCIDENT CO. v. SPURLOCK.
Middle Section.
January 14, 1933.
Petition for Certiorari denied by Supreme Court, April 8, 1933.
Turner & Haston, of McMinnville, for plaintiff in error, Insurance Co.
Mercer & Johnson, of McMinnville, for defendant in error, Spur-lock.

Opinion:
CROWNOVER, J.
This case is again before us on motion to dismiss the writs of error and supersedeas heretofore granted by us in, this case, in that the supplemental record showed that the bill of exceptions was filed on August 31, 1931, and that the verdict and judgment had actually been made on June 22, 1931, but the same were entered of record by an order nunc pro tunc made on July 4, 1931.
This motion must be overruled, for the reason that the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial was not actually made and entered until July 4, 1931, and in that order the defendant was allowed sixty days in which to prepare and file a bill of exceptions; hence the bill of exceptions, being filed on August 31, 1931, was filed within the time allowed.
It is insisted that the original judgment was made on June 22, 1931, but was entered under an order nunc pro' tunc made and entered on July 4, 1931.
The supplemental record filed in this case was prepared and filed under a written stipulation signed by all the attorneys. This written stipulation contains the minutes of the court showing the return of the verdict and the entry of the judgment. It shows that the verdict was returned on June 22, 1931, but was entered under a nunc pro tunc order made on July 4, 1931. The motion for a new trial was filed some time before July 4, as the order shows that the court overruled the same on July 4 and entered judgment for the plaintiff for $325, with interest, to which the defendant excepted and prayed an appeal, which was granted, and sixty days from July 4, 1931, was allowed the defendant in which to prepare and file its bill of exceptions. There is nothing in the record showing that the judgment was actually made on June 22, 1931, but, on the contrary, the supplemental record shows that it was made and entered on July 4, 1931. It was agreed by the attorneys that the supplemental record was a correct copy of the verdict and judgment, hence the motion must be overruled, and the clerk is directed to place the case on the docket for trial at the next term of this court.