Legal Opinion

City of Denver v. Capelli

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 15, 1877PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Probate Court of Arapahoe County.

1Opinion of the CourtThatcher, C. J.

The twenty-first section of onr Practice Act requires that a bill of-exceptions must be signed'and sealed before it can become a part of the record. The statute is mandatory. It is a perfectly well-established doctrine that unless a bill of exceptions be authenticated as required by law by the signature and seal of the judge by whom it was settled, it is no part of the record. Jones v. Sprague, 2 Scam. 55; Reeves v. Reeves, 54 Ill. 332; Eastes v. Daubenspeck, 4 Ind. 617; Law v. Nelson, 8 Cow. 746; Tweedy v. Commonwealth, 2 Metc. (Ky.) 379; Haden v. Brown, 22 Ala. 572; Danah et al. v.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Reeves v. ReevesIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Haden v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
  3. Law v. Jackson ex dem. LansingCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1826
  4. Leonard v. WarrinerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Eastes v. DaubenspeckIndiana Supreme Court · 1853

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Marshall Silver Mining Co. v. KirtleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1884
  2. Williams v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1898
  3. State Bank v. PlummerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909
  4. Big Kanawha Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909
  5. Maher v. RenshawSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API