Forest v. Crenshaw
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 9 —ORDINARY APPEAL FROM METCALFE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Improper evidence was permitted to go to the jury. 2. The deed from Tinsley’s heirs to Twyman should not have been admitted. (Morehead & Brown’s Stat., 457.) 3. The second instruction is error.
Read the full summary
Case 9 —ORDINARY APPEAL FROM METCALFE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Improper evidence was permitted to go to the jury. 2. The deed from Tinsley’s heirs to Twyman should not have been admitted. (Morehead & Brown’s Stat., 457.) 3. The second instruction is error. The court erred in refusing instruction No. 9. (Fox v. Hinton, 4 Bibb, 559.) 1. It is plain that this court cannot, upon the face of the bill of exceptions, ascertain what is the purport of instruction No. 9. 2. The judge had no right to impose upon the clerk the duty, nor to give him the authority, to complete the bill of exceptions bjr inserting…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion of the court.
We have made no examination of the testimony in this case, as the instructions are not properly a part of the record. The refusal of the court to give a peremptory instruction is not assigned for error, and as to the other instructions complained of, they are not embraced by or included in the bill of exceptions signed by the judge.
The clerk has copied certain instructions, but whether they were the instructions given or refused we cannot know. They were not made part of the record in the court below by any order of court, nor are they identified…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Buessel v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- New York Life Ins. v. Brown's AdmrCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902
- Gambrell v. GambrellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Weddington v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
- Pennyroyal Fair Ass'n v. HiteCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.