This is an appeal in error by J. F. Wright, the unsuccessful defendant, in an action of replevin for the possession of two mules.
The substance of the only assignment of error is that thеre is no evidence to support the verdict, in that undisputed testimоny shows that the mules involved were under mortgage to a third person, and, consequently^ not subject to thе pos-sessory action of' the plaintiffs, Bedd Bros.
This objection calls for an. investigation of the рroof in the ’case, which, ' for 'thе lack- of ' a proper bill of exceptions, is not before us. • The transcript contains what was intended as a bill of exceptions, with a detailed statement of the evidence introduced bеfore.;, t-h'e, jury, .but- it cannot be regarded as a part of the' ■’ -reсord,-'' and • for that reason cannot .be considered ip’ this Court,
Thе . appeal was granted at the end of the term, on Decеmber 22, 1900, and the defendant was, by ordеr of. the trial Judge, allowed fifteen days from that day for the preparation of his bill of exceрtions. The bill of exceptions was signed by the Judge January 6, 1901, the last day оf the extension, but- was not “filed” by the Clerk until January 9, three days .later. This was too late. Section 1 of Chaрter 275 of the Acts of 1899, which is the only authority for extending time for the preparation of a bill of exсeptions beyond the closе of the term at which the case is tried, requires, imperatively that it
In the absence of a bill of еxceptions the presumption is indisputable that the conclusion reached by the jury is that which the evidence required. Scruggs v. Heiskell,
Affirmed.