Hill v. Weisler
Hill v. Weisler
Opinion of the Court
1. It is impossible to determine, from the record before us, whether an appeal was taken from the order denying a new trial or from the judgment, or both. The transcript contains the judgment and the order denying a new trial. Ho notice of appeal and no evidence of service of such notice is shown; the only stipulation upon this point is “that notices of new trial and appeal, and appeal bond were duly served and filed and made in time.”
2. If the appeal is to be regarded as taken from the judgment alone, it is sufficient to say that we discover no error upon the judgment-roll, as found in the record.
3. If the appeal was taken from the order denying a new trial, it is apparent that that order is not before us for examination. If errors of either law or fact occurred which would have entitled the defendant to a new trial, they are not sufficiently specified within any recognized rule of practice—even the most liberal in its character.
Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.
Neither Mr. Justice Rhodes nor Mr. Justice Niles expressed an opinion.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- ADELIA HILL v. WM. WEISLER
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Aepexii.—When the notice of appeal is not inserted in the transcript, but in place thereof there is a stipulation that a notice of appeal was filed and served, and there is also a statement on motion for a new trial, and an order denying the same, the Court cannot determine whether the appeal was taken from the judgment or order denying a new trial. Statement on Motion foe a New Tbial.—A statement in support of a motion for a new trial must specify the particular errors of the law relied on, and the particular reasons why the verdict is alleged to be contrary to the evidence.