Case Name: J. R. Phillips v. R. Christmas
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1868-09-23
Citations: 2 Ky. Op. 583
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. R. Phillips v. R. Christmas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Opinions, containing the unreported opinions of the Court of Appeals
Volume: 2
Pages: 583–584

Head Matter:
J. R. Phillips v. R. Christmas.
Bill of Exceptions — Filing of Same — Nunc Pro Tunc.
A hill of exceptions, filed some four months after an order of court ' granting leave to file same October 26, 1867, and “time until Saturday next is given to file a bill of exceptions,” on February 29, 1868, leave is given to “withdraw bill of exceptions filed in case No. 1703, and file in this case,” and again on March 7, the court granted leave to file same “in this case nunc pro tunc as of November 1867,” is held to be two late under any view of the ease.
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT. G. P.
September 23, 1868.

Opinion:
Opinion of ti-ie Court by
Judge Williams :
There is no possible right in which the bill of exception, containing the evidence in this case can be regarded consistent with the Code of Practice and the adjudications of this court. The motion for a new trial was overruled October 26, 1867, and "time until Saturday next is given him to file bill of exceptions." February 29th, more than four months afterwards, appellant moved for leave to withdraw the bill of exceptions filed in case No. 1703 and file it in this case. March 7th, the court granted leave to file the bill of exceptions, which had been im properly filed in No. 1703 "in this case Nunc pro tunc as of November, 1867."
Wood & Bernardj, for appellants.
Bodley & Simrall, for appellee.
So that even this nunc pro tunc filing was 28 days too late under any view of the case. It is not however intended to decide the validity of such order had it been filed as of the right time. There being no bill of exceptions no other question can be adjudicated. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed with damage.