Court Opinion

ID: 7961966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 00:46:13.781829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:34:30.988403
License: Public Domain

The facts as shown by the record and papers in the ease and by the affidavit of the attorney for the appellant filed in support of said motion were:
a — That the writ of error was issued December 6, 1895, returnable December 26,1895, and was returned December 28, 1895.
6 — That the case was tried November 13 and 14, 1895; that on December 6, 1895, the bill of exceptions was settled and signed by the circuit judge.
c — That upon preparing the copy of the record for the printer it was discovered that the order as entered contained a paragraph dismissing the appeal, which was in contradiction of the ruling and decision of the circuit judge before whom the case was tried; that appellant’s attorney gave notice to the attorneys for the appellees of a motion to amend said order by striking out said paragraph; that December 5, 1895, was the earliest day that the motion could be heard, on which day the motion was granted; that on December 18, 1895, a copy of the assignments of error had been served on the attorneys for the appellees.
if — That the deposition of one of the witnesses sworn on the trial consisted of a tabulated statement of account embracing 165 pages of composition work, which could not be done as rapidly as the ordinary pages of a record; that on December 23, 1895, a copy of the record was delivered to* the printer, with instructions to complete the printed record with all practicable speed; that the attorney for the appellant was not able to get said record from the printer until January 3,' 1896; that he at once served a *30copy of said record and of appellant’s brief upon the attorneys for the appellees, and filed with the clerk the required number of copies of the printed record and brief.