62 Iowa 91 | Iowa | 1883
There is some evidence tending to show that the power of attorney, by virtue of which the sale is alleged
It is not necessary to determine whether the case is triable de novo to enable us to review the question above determined. The action was brought in 1878, and while the pro
We find, it is true, an additional abstract, by the appellee, in which he says: “The notes of the short-hand reporter were never transcribed into long-hand until after the decree in this case, and such long-hand transcript of the notes of the short-hand reporter has never been filed in the district court where the said case was tried, and in no other court, and there is no entry in the appearance docket showing the filing of the short-hand notes themselves, and they were never certified to.”
It must appear, of course, presumptively or otherwise, before any question can be raised upon the evidence, that it was certified. But what is the fact in this respect, taking the appellant’s and the appellee’s abstracts together? In the appellant’s abstract we find, following the evidence, a certificate in these words: “I, W. R. Sellon, short-hand reporter, etc., * * * certify that the foregoing pages are a true and correct transcript of all the evidence, both oral and written, introduced or offered on the trial of the cause of, etc., * * * together with the rulings of the court, etc.
(Signed.) “ W. R. SelloN.”
Following this, wo find another in these words: “ I, A. II. Stutsman, judge, etc., * * * * certify that the above and foregoing transcript contains all the evidence introduced or offered on the trial of said cause of, etc., * . * * together with all objections,” etc.
(Signed.) “A. II. StutsmaN, District Judge.”
We find, also, in the additional abstract by the appellee, that a skeleton bill of exceptions was signed by the judge, in .which he states that the case “was heard upon the depositions of John W. Moorhead, Thomas L. Moorhead * * * * and upon the testimony of witnesses, * * * ' * * as shown in the notes of testimony'of W. R. Sellon, official short-hand reporter,” etc.
The original notes were, we will presume, filed in this case. It was the official duty of the short-hand reporter to file them.
We think, then, that the record is in a condition to call for a review of the question determined, and having, upon that question, reached a conclusion different from that reached by the court below, the judgment must be
Reversed.