Case Name: Mineral Ridge Coal Co. v. Smith
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1886-04-21
Citations: 68 Iowa 561
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mineral Ridge Coal Co. v. Smith.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 561–562

Head Matter:
Mineral Ridge Coal Co. v. Smith.
1. Bill of Exceptions: not filed in time allowed: result. The trial court allowed defendant ninety days within which to prepare and file his bill of exceptions, but the bill, as shown by the record, was not signed by the trial judge nor filed within ninety days. Held that it could nob be regained, and that errors assigned, but not shown by the record, after excluding the bill of exceptions, could not be considered. (Code, § 2831; Lynch v. Kennedy, 42 Iowa, 220.)
Appeal from, Boone Circuit Court.
Wednesday, April 21.
Plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land on which there is a coal mine. Defendant was in possession of said mine, under a lease of the premises given by plaintiff’s grantor. Plaintiff brought this action to cancel said lease and recover possession of the property, because of certain alleged breaches by defendant of the terms of the contract. The cause was tried as an ordinary action, and there was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
JE. L. Green, for appellant.
1. N. Kidder and OrooJcs & Jordan, for appellee.

Opinion:
Reed, J.
When the judgment appealed from was entered in the circuit court, the court made an order granting defendant ninety days within which to prej>are and file his bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions embodied in the transcript appears to have been signed by the judge on the ninety-first day, and filed by the clerk on the ninety-second day, after the order was made. Appellee now insists that it cannot be regarded as part of the record. This position must be conceded. See Code, § 2831. Lynch v. Kennedy, 42 Iowa, 220.
Appellant makes six assignments of error, four of which are based on alleged rulings of the court in excluding certain evidence offered by appellant; but when the bill of exceptions is disregarded, there is no evidence in the record that the court ever made the rulings complained of. The fifth and sixth assignments are that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion for judgment on the special verdict for a new trial. But each of these motions is based in part on facts and rulings of the court which are not shown except by the bill of exceptions. It is impossible, on the record before us, to consider any of the questions sought to be raised by the assignment of errors.
The judgment will be
Affirmed.