Guardian Assurance Co. of London v. Quintana

Background

A party who lost at trial sought review of a judgment that followed a retrial. At the retrial the defendant had asked for a short postponement because witnesses had been discharged after an earlier mistrial; that request was denied, counsel withdrew, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. A bill of exceptions was tendered to preserve the claim about the denied postponement, but it was never settled in the lower court before the record reached this Court. At one point this Court refused a motion to dismiss for want of a record, and the local judge handling the bill of exceptions fell ill and later died. His successor did not act to settle the bill, and the parties likewise took no steps to press the matter.

Reasoning

The Court first considered whether the asserted error—refusing the continuance—was so frivolous that the appeal should be rejected without looking at details. Looking to the facts that a bill of exceptions would have shown, the Court concluded the point was not plainly frivolous because witnesses had been discharged and a denial could, in some circumstances, be an abuse of discretion. The Court also held that a federal statute authorized a successor judge to settle the bill of exceptions, so the lack of settlement did not automatically justify dismissal. For these reasons the Court chose not to dismiss the appeal for delay or to affirm on the thin record.

Real world impact

The Court denied both motions without prejudice and directed that the parties promptly seek settlement of the bill of exceptions from the successor judge or another authorized judge. If the bill cannot be settled, the judge must certify why, and any settled bill is to be added in a supplemental record so the appeal’s merits can be considered.