Case Name: City of Denver v. Capelli
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1877-04
Citations: 3 Colo. 236
Docket Number: 
Parties: City of Denver v. Capelli.
Judges: 
Reporter: Colorado Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
City of Denver v. Capelli.
Where a party has tendered his bill of exceptions to the judge, in apt time, under the order of court, he has so far complied with the rule as not to be prejudiced by the failure of the judge to actually sign the bill within the time prescribed. Actus curios neminem gravabit.
The motion of the defendant in error, to strike from the record the bill of exceptions in this case, having been allowed, Mr. Chas. S. Thomas, for plaintiff in error, now moved for leave to file a supplemental transcript of record.

Opinion:
Thatcher, C. J.
Actus curia neminem gravabit is a legal maxim, which, says Judge Cresswell, !£ is founded on justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law." Freeman v. Tranah, 74 E. C. L. R. 415. In the case before us it applies with peculiar force. The bill of exceptions was tendered to'the judge within the time fixed by the.order of court, but was not signed by the judge within that time. " The act of the court or judge shall not, in law, prejudice or vitiate the well-intended act of the party." For the purpose of facilitating the settling of the bill of exceptions, the judge, by the consent of both parties, as appears by fair inference, permitted it to be withdrawn. Whether the judge should have allowed the bill of exceptions to be taken away after it was duly tendered is not a material inquiry. The fact is, that he did permit it, and delay was occasioned thereby. .To this delay the defendant in error contributed, and cannot now be heard to complain. Underwood v. Hossack, 40 Ill. 98, is an authority for saying that where a party has tendered his bill of exceptions to the judge in apt time, under the order of court, he has so far complied with the rule as not to be prejudiced by the failure of the judge to actually sign the bill, within the time prescribed. See, also., Powell on Appellate Proceedings, 419; and Lane v. Robinson, 40 Ga. 467.
While the better practice doubtless requires that the supplemental transcript should contain the bill of exceptions only, as that alone has been expunged, we will not on that account, in this instance, deny the motion, but will direct the clerk to strike out of the amended transcript all but the bill of exceptions. *
Motion allowed.