Case Name: Kesler v. Myers
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1873-05
Citations: 41 Ind. 543
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kesler v. Myers.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 543–558

Head Matter:
Kesler v. Myers.
Practice.—Affidavits.—Bill of Exceptions. —Where a petition was Hied in the circuit court for relief from a judgment in that court, dismissing an appeal from the judgment of a justice, and the petition was overruled, and the bill of exceptions did not contain the affidavits filed in support of the petition, but in lieu thereof, the words “heretofore inserted in this record;”
Held, that the affidavits, not being properly part of the record, could not be considered by the Supreme Court.
Same.—Transcript.—Statute.—Clerk's Duty.—The statute declares what matters shall constitute a part of the record, and how the same shall be made a part thereof, and no rule of court regulates the practice. Section 559, 2 G. & H. 273. All proper entries made by the clerk, and all papers pertaining to a cause and filed therein, and not relating to collateral matters, are by statute made parts of the record without a bill of exceptions. A motion to set aside a default is a collateral matter, and the affidavits supporting the motion are not part of the record, unless made so by order of the court, or by a bill of exceptions in which they are incorporated. The judge may sign the bill of exceptions without the affidavits being inserted, if they are identified in the paper by distinct reference, and the proper place designated for their insertion, but the clerk, in making out the transcript, must insert them in full in the bill of exceptions. If the affidavits constituted part of the record by force of the statute, the words “here insert” would be sufficient if a proper reference were made to them for identification, and they were already set out in the record.
Same.—Appeal.—Certiorari IVithout Motion.—Motion for Certiorari.—At any time pending an appeal, this court, ex officio, may award a certiorari, to infonn its conscience, for the purpose of affirming a judgment, but never to reverse it, or make error. On motion, supported by affidavit of diminution of the record, a certiorari is awarded either party.
APPEAL from the Marion Circuit Court.

Opinion:
Buskirk, J.
—This was a proceeding for relief from a judg ment by default, under section 99 of the code, as amended by the act, approved March 4th, 1867. 3 Ind. Stat. 373.
The facts are these: Myers sued Kesler before a justice of the peace and obtained judgment, from which Kesler appealed to the circuit court. The justice sent up the transcript, and the case was regularly docketed. The subsequent history of the case is shown by the following bill of exceptions in the record:
"The State of Indiana, Marion County. Civil Circuit Court, December Term, 1871.
"John Myers v. Lewis Kesler. Appeal from John F. Turpin, J. P., Wayne Township.
" Be it remembered that on the 14th day of the September Term, 1871, of this court, being the 3d day of October, 1871, this cause was called for trial, and the defendant, being called, comes not, but makes default, and thereupon his appeal was dismissed.
"And on the 2d day of the December Term, 1871, of said court, being the 5th day of December, 1871, the defendant filed his petition for relief from said judgment of dismissal and affidavits in support thereof, to set aside his default herein and to reinstate the cause, which petition and affidavits are in these words:
(Heretofore inserted in this record.)
"And the court having considered said petition and motion, afterward, on the 12th day of said December Term, 1871, overruled the same and refused to set aside said default and reinstate said cause, to which decision and judgment the defendant excepted, and prays that this, his bill of exceptions, may be made a part of the record in this cause, which is done accordingly.
"Signed and dated this 3d day of February, 1872.
"John S. Tarkington, [seal.]
"Judge M. C. C. C."
The following entry of the clerk below appears in the transcript: "And afterward, to wit, at the December Term, 1871, of said court, on the third judicial day of said term, that being the 6th day of December, 1871, and before the honorable judge aforesaid, the following further proceedings were had in said cause, viz.: Comes the defendant and moves the court to reinstate this cause upon the docket of this court and files the following affidavits, to wit: "
The clerk then copies into the transcript the affidavits of Lewis Kesler, Fabius M. Finch, and Charles Sage.
The question presented for our decision is, whether such affidavits are properly in .the record and can be considered by us.
It is too well settled to admit of argument or justify a reference to the long and unbroken line of decisions in this court, that the affidavits could only become a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.
The real question, therefore, is, have the affidavits been made a part of the bill of exceptions ? This question was very fully considered by us in the recent decision in the case of Stewart v. Rankin, 39 Ind. 161.
It is provided by section 343 of the code, 2 G. & H. 209, that " it shall not be necessary to copy a written instrument, or any documentary evidence into a bill of exceptions; but it shall be sufficient to refer to such evidence, if its appropriate place be designated by the words 'here insert.' "
In the above cited case, we held, that where the purpose was to incorporate into a bill of exceptions a written instrument or documentary evidence, and such bill referred to such written instrument or documentary evidence, and designated its appropriate place by the words "here insert," the clerk, in making out the transcript, was authorized and* required to insert in the appropriate place in the bill of exceptions such written instrument or documentary evidence and we further held that where a written instrument properly and legally constituted a part of the record without being made such by a bill of exceptions, and where it had^ already been copied into the transcript, the clerk was; not required to again copy such instrument into the bill of exceptions, but might make the same a part thereof, by-inserting in the designated place a reference to the page and line of the transcript where the same could be found.
We further held, it being applicable to that case, though not to this, that where the purpose was to embody into a bill of exceptions the parol testimony, the judge was not authorized to sign such bill of exceptions, until the testimony was written out in full in such bill of exceptions, and he had satisfied himself, either by a personal examination of such testimony or by the consent of opposing counsel, that it spoke the truth; and that if it was not true the judge should correct it or suggest the correction to be made; and that when the bill was made to speak the truth, he should sign it, and not before.
Adhering, as we do, to the rulings in that case, we are compelled to hold that the affidavits in the case in judgment do not constitute a part of the record. They did not constitute a part of the record, without being made such by a bill of exceptions. The clerk, therefore, had no right to copy them into the transcript, and they not being properly a part of the transcript, he could not make them a part of the bill of exceptions by referring to the place where they could be found. He should have copied them into the bill of exceptions, where, he says " (heretofore inserted in the record)."
The mistakes of clerks and the want of attention on the part of counsel compel us, in many cases, against our wishes, to dispose of cases on technical points, instead of deciding them on their merits. But an adherence to established rules of practice is essential to the due administration of justice. The affidavits not being in the record, we must presume that the ruling of the court below was correct.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.