Ex Parte Century Indemnity Co.

Background

A civil case went to a judge without a jury. After trial, the trial court ordered judgment for the plaintiff "upon findings of fact and conclusions of law to be presented." The defendant later tried to present special findings and assigned errors to their rejection. The Circuit Court of Appeals first refused to consider those assignments on timing grounds and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On rehearing, the appeals court relied on a different reason: the defendant’s proposed findings were not incorporated into the bill of exceptions (the official trial record). The defendant asked the Supreme Court to order the appeals court to consider the assignments, and this Court issued a rule asking the appeals-court judges to show cause why it should not vacate their judgment.

Reasoning

On review, the Supreme Court examined the trial record and the procedures required for authentication. While the record and transcript show there was a paper identified as the defendant’s proposed findings, that paper is not actually included in the bill of exceptions and so is not properly authenticated under the statute cited. Because the proposed findings were not part of the authenticated trial record, the Supreme Court said it could not direct the Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the assignments of error. The Court relied on the requirement that papers must be included in the bill of exceptions to be treated as part of the official record.

Real world impact

The Court discharged the rule to show cause and left the appeals court’s judgment standing. Practically, litigants must ensure proposed findings and trial papers are properly included and authenticated in the official trial record if they want appellate courts to review them. The Supreme Court will not order appellate review when the trial record is defective.