Legal Opinion

Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. Woolman

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 4, 1901No. 3,437Published

From the Lake Superior Court.

1Per curiam

Counsel for appellee insists9that the transcript shows on its face that no question is presented for review, for the reason that there is no seal attached to the certificate of the clerk. The certificate is signed by the clerk of the Lake Superior Court and states that the seal is affixed, but it is in fact without any such seal. As what purports to be a transcript of the record is not authenticated by the seal of the lower court, no question is presented. Fidelity, etc., Union v. Byrd, 154 Ind. 47; East Chicago, etc., Co. v. Siwy, 23 Ind. App. 564; Conkey v. Conder, 137 Ind. 411; Watson v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McIlhinny v. McIlhinnyIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  2. 4 Fidelity Building & Savings Union v. ByrdIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Watson v. FinchIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Carpenter v. SchaefferIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
  5. East Chicago Iron & Steel Co. v. SiwyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API