*1 Corporation paying profits, any, Roads one-half of if after the net expenses spreading yet emphat- on these asphalt, contracts for he Boyd ically Corporation nor stated that neither the Good Roads any way inwas connected with that com- complainants, denied plainants corporation’s were connected had with or assumed said but, contrary, complainants defendants, contracts with on the independent entered into contracts the defendants new, written with asphalt, agree- nothing collateral knew about these Boyd. corporation ments of that Hence we complainants proof to show was insufficient original same, terested in or had assumed contracts this- assignment overruled. sustained, having it follows that been reversed cause dis-

the decree of the Chancellor and the including missed. The cost of the cause the cost of the adjudged against prosecution complainants and sureties on their bond. DeWitt, J.,

Faw, J.,P. concur. HOLLAND.

HAYES & CHUNN v. C.E. March Court, by Supreme Petition Certiorari June *2 error, Hayes & Shelby Columbia, plaintiffs J. in Coffey, of for Cbunn. in Hopkins, error,

R. S. for Holland. Columbia, defendant damages J. CROWNOVER, This an action for caused was judgment trucks, $154.05 in for the collision of two and resulted a Hayes appealed & plaintiff below, in favor the Holland. Chunn in error. fqr assignments

We cannot entertain of error the reason that the judgment in were the motions for new trial and arrest the part exceptions copied bill of into minutes the of the court.

A the court motion for new trial not on the minutes of exceptions part forms nO' of the nor included in the record. though copied transcript into the Iron Coal Co. assignments questions which of errors raise

It follows all the that as pre- necessarily properly based on a motion for a trial must they court, in minutes of the in bill of the served the judgment court overruled, the of the lower must be affirmed. $154.05, for with interest judgment will be entered in this court together with up present time, the September

from the -against Hayes & Holland and below, in favor of of the court cost adjudged against Hayes & Chunn is appeal The cost of the Chunn. Executions issue accord- surety appeal bond. will on their ingly. FOR ON PETITION REHEARING.

OPINION petition again This on to rehear and cause before us two reasons: former was erroneous for sisted that our in plaintiff it was not first, because case was court, as the a motion for a new trial in lower make jury; second, not nec- judge that it was without in bill of essary motion for a new trial to include the or have minutes of court. We think grounds taken, neither of these is well

On long it was for a time doubted whether it was non-jury cases, for a motion a new trial necessary. some of our older cases held was not But that it all the recent cases both uni- Court and our have court formly was-neeessary held and file a new non-jury trial jury as -well cases. as below, failure make a motion court ground in law eases, appeal error, though dismissal of an jury. case 1 Supp., -wastried court without Vol. Michie’s Ency. Wade, Tenn. Digest, Shelton v.

W., 253; Guy 5Co., Hardware

Many cited on this as arisen at could be it has every required almost term of the and it is statute. now Now, in Appeals all eases tried on or other- wise, hearing shall be de where case was tried in the novo judge jury, tried on court without a but where oral evidence the low'er court it is to make motion and to aby *3 94. See of eh. Acts

Hence, precedent that is neces- it settled statute and it sary all a motion for new trial in cases in the testimony. court on oral judge it

It is the trial insisted that where facts found necessary preserve not and necessary We is not to make a motion for trial. therefore it opinion proposition are of this is untenable. motion that agreed facts, necessary new is an state of trial is where there necessary by a of although preserve is not such evidence bill it W., 377; Smith, Tenn., 453, 147 Board R R. v. 79.W., 148 257 Equalization R., v. R. S. at law new trial in all cases necessary It is motion proper, and except apparent on for errors the face n for a new trial. be on the motion of error must based 2 168. App., Burton, v. See Rhoton for a new the motion Of to include course it record, such as technical upon the face of the apparent trial errors up is made technical record upon pleadings, etc. The arise entries, verdict pleadings, only process, consists .minute v. 662; 4 Phillips, Higgins, Cobble v. judgment. See Johnston 2 Tenn. Agricultural Corp., International made, not w'ell proposition is that the first Hence, will seen in law exceptions made necessary to the errors as it is allowed motion filed within the time law. the mo

The second that is not to include for a bill to have same tion new trial in the rea well the minutes of is not original opinion. and our sons set in our out only way court have held in several cases that upon may by having preserved same ex including the same within the minutes of the court or proposition ceptions. This is settled John

Iron Coal Co. filed Higgins, this has Phillips, 662. The writer of ston proposition in which same opinions, reported, several other opinions knows of disposed of, several has been raised thus is so well set Hence, effect. this court matter. is not to further discuss tled rehearing must for a It results DeWitt, J., .concur. Paw, J., P. DYER, Error, Plaintiff v. G. N. OF LAWRENCEBURG,

CITY Administrator, Defendant Error. November Supreme Court, April

Petition for Certiorari