Gee v. Terrio

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,559Published

Before: Myrick

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed a judgment of nonsuit because the bill of exceptions was not settled by the presiding judge as required by the Code.

Issues

Whether a bill of exceptions settled only by the attorneys for the parties is valid under the Code.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Code requires that the bill of exceptions be settled by the judge who presided at the trial, instead of by agreement of the parties.”

Synopsis

Bill of Exceptions.—A bill of exceptions settled and agreed to by the attorneys, but not signed by the judge, held to be insufficient, and the judgment affirmed.

Myrick, J.: This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit. There is in the transcript what purports to be a bill of exceptions, settled and agreed to by the attorneys for the respective parties, but not by the Judge. The Code requires that the bill of exceptions be settled by the judge who presided at the trial, instead of by agreement of the parties. No error appears in the record. Judgment affirmed.

Sharpstein, J., and Morrison, C. J., concurred.

More from California Supreme Court

People v. Wende (1979)
People v. Watson (1956)
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
People v. Kelly (2006)
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
People v. Lewis (2021)
In Re Estrada (1965)
Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
People v. Marsden (1970)

Related research