Case Name: Aaron Burkadink, plaintiff in error, vs. John Martin Baker, defendant in error
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1845-01
Citations: 1 Morris 442
Docket Number: 
Parties: Aaron Burkadink, plaintiff in error, vs. John Martin Baker, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Iowa
Volume: 1
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
Aaron Burkadink, plaintiff in error, vs. John Martin Baker, defendant in error.
Error lo Washington.
Where the hill of exceptions alludes to papers not set out in the record of the cas» from the District Court, they cannot be considered. The Supreme Court cannot ;go o at of the record and will not notice papers thus referred to.
This was an action of debt brought by the plaintiff against the defen* dant on a promissory note.
Pleas, 1. Nil debit. 2. Duress of imprisonment. 3. Note was obtained by fraud. 4. Want of consideration. 5. Failure of consideration. ,. 6. Setoff. Judgment against the plaintiff for costs at the Sept, term, 1844. The following bill of exceptions was sealed.
“ Be it known (hat on the trial of this cause the plaintiff gave in evidence to the jury the note (here insert the copy of the note given in evidence) and rested his case. The defendant proved that the note was given to plaintiff by defendant on the settlement of a case of bastardy, (here insert the copy of the affidavit, warrant and proceedings before the justice, who tried the case) and proved that the said note was given to settle the said cause, and whilst the defendant was in custody by virtue of the warrant. It was also proved that on the day succeeding the day on which this note was given, and after the defendant was discharged from the arrest, the parties met, and in addition to the note, a full settlement of all other matters was had between them.
“ Upon this state of the evidence the jury by consent returneda¡ ver- / diet for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the above facts. The court decided that the plaintiff could not recover, and rendered a judgment against him, to which opinion the plaintiff excepts, and prays the court to sign and seal this bill of exceptions.
“ J. WILLIAMS, Judge, [seal.]
Burkadink brought the case up upon a writ of error.
IIall, for plaintiff in error.
Carleton, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
Wilson, Justice.
The bill of exceptions in this case alludes to papers, warrants, &c., in this way (here insert.) These refer to warrants, affidavits, transcripts and other proceedings before a justice of the peace, we presume, but what justice of the peace, what warrant, what suit, does not appear any where in the record. Whether the imprisonment was legal or illegal does not appear. We cannot go out of the record, and from it there appears to be no error. It has been decided at this term of the court in the case of Childs & Co. vs. Risk, upon authority, that where papers are referred'to in this way, the court will not take notice of them.
Judgment below affirmed.