James v. Bank, 74 U.S. 692 (1868)
U.S. Supreme Court
James v. Bank, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 692 692 (1868)James v. Bank
74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 692
Syllabus
Where there is no bill of exceptions, and nothing upon which error can be assigned, the regular practice is to affirm the judgments, not to dismiss.
The Bank of Mobile brought suit in the court below against one James, on bill of exchange. The record of the case, as sent here, contained nothing but the declaration; the plea of the general issue; the proof of protest of the bill of exchange, endorsed by the defendant, and notice to him of nonpayment, and judgment of the court in favor of the plaintiff. There was no bill of exceptions, and nothing upon which error could be assigned.
A motion was now made by Mr. P. Phillips, in behalf of the defendant in error, to dismiss the case; an unreported order of dismissal, which was said to have been made at the last term on a similar case, being referred to.
U.S. Supreme Court
James v. Bank, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 692 692 (1868) James v. Bank 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 692 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUITCOURT FOR LOUISIANA Syllabus Where there is no bill of exceptions, and nothing upon which error can be assigned, the regular practice is to affirm the judgments, not to dismiss. The Bank of Mobile brought suit in the court below against one James, on bill of exchange. The record of the case, as sent here, contained nothing but the declaration; the plea of the general issue; the proof of protest of the bill of exchange, endorsed by the defendant, and notice to him of nonpayment, and judgment of the court in favor of the plaintiff. There was no bill of exceptions, and nothing upon which error could be assigned. A motion was now made by Mr. P. Phillips, in behalf of the defendant in error, to dismiss the case; an unreported order of dismissal, which was said to have been made at the last term on a similar case, being referred to. Page 74 U. S. 693 THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court. The regular course, in cases of this description, is to affirm the judgments. The appeal is regularly here, an cannot be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The motion, therefore, must be DENIED. Counsel for the appellee has referred us to an order dismissing a writ of error at the last term under circumstances like those of the case before us. This order must have been entered through inadvertence, and cannot be drawn into a precedent.
