Case Name: HOSMER v. WILLIAMS
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1883-08
Citations: 1 Wright 355
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOSMER v. WILLIAMS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
HOSMER v. WILLIAMS.
Error — bill of exceptions — amendments after error.
A court of error will take no notice of a bill of exceptions returned with the papers, unless incorporated into the final record, according to the statute.
The court of error has no power, under our law, to allow amendments, even in matters of form, after writ of error brought.
Error. There were several errors complained of, which were-set forth in a bill of exceptions, returned with the record. One was, that the judgment was for a greater sum than was demanded in the writ and declaration.
Willey for the plaintiff in error.
Andrews and Hitchcock contra.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
As to all the matters that are set forth in-the bill of exceptions, and which only appear there, we can take no-notice of them, because the bill of exceptions forms no part of the record. It has been repeatedly decided, that if a party would avail himself of a bill of exceptions, he must have it recorded under our law; 29 O. L. 75.
The other error is fatal. Our statute of amendments limits the right to amend to some time before writ of error brought, and does not extend beyond; 29 O. L. 77. We have no power to amend, or to disregard even matters of'form, after writ of error.
The judgment is reversed, in all things, since the finding of the verdict, and remanded for further proceedings.
[Bill of exceptions must be part of record; Acheson v. Western Reserve Bank, 8 O. 117, 119.]