Case Name: HENRY COLESBERRY, Executor of Levi Colesberry, v. CHARLES ANDERSON
Court: Delaware Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: Delaware
Decision Date: 1817-06-13
Citations: 2 Del. Cas. 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: HENRY COLESBERRY, Executor of Levi Colesberry, v. CHARLES ANDERSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Delaware Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 313–315

Head Matter:
HENRY COLESBERRY, Executor of Levi Colesberry, v. CHARLES ANDERSON.
High Court of Errors and Appeals.
June 13, 1817.
Ridgely’s Notebook I, 38.
Vandyke and Rogers for plaintiff in error. Rodney, for defendant for McLane, the retained counsel, who had left Dover, as Mr. Rodney said.
This was an action of debt, brought by husband for a legacy bequeathed to his wife during the coverture. The wife was not a party to the suit. .
[Bill of exceptions.]
Rodney, for defendant in error,
here stated that he should object to the reading of the bill of exceptions unless the plaintiff produced the books and papers referred to in it, and making part of it. That the propriety of the opinion of the court below could be judged of only by seeing the papers on which they decided.
Ridgely and Johns said that an imperfect bill of exception could not hurt the defendant. The counsel then said they had agreed to postpone the cause until next term. This the Court would not allow. . ■.

Opinion:
Chancellor Ridgely.
After these papers were produced and read in evidence in the court below, they were as much the papers of the court as the writ or declaration. Regularly they should have been incorporated in the bill of exceptions, but as. in our loose way they are referred to the party taking the bill,, the plaintiff in error here should have annexed those papers to< the bill. It was his duty so to do, and as he has not, he has taken on himself the risk of producing the papers; and if they are not with the bill, the bill cannot be read, for it is a part only of the record. The whole must be read or none.