Exporters of Manufacturers' Products, Inc. v. Butterworth-Judson Co.
Headline: Court rules that a judge may not approve and sign a bill of exceptions after the court term has expired, blocking late approval even when lawyers agree to an extension.
Holding: The Court held that a bill of exceptions signed and certified after the trial court’s term expired is invalid because parties’ consent cannot restore the court’s lost power to approve it.
- Prevents judges from approving bills of exceptions after the court term has expired.
- Lawyers cannot revive a court’s power by stipulation after term expiration.
- Late bills of exceptions will not be considered part of the record.
Summary
Background
A company that had won a jury verdict in federal court was faced with a late attempt by the losing party to file a bill of exceptions to preserve trial rulings for appeal. The trial record shows the regular court term had expired on February 24, 1920; counsel signed a stipulation on March 1, 1920, saying the term was extended to April 6, 1920 to settle and file the bill. Relying on that stipulation, the trial judge signed the bill after February 24, and the winning party asked the higher court to strike it from the record because the term had already ended.
Reasoning
The Court reaffirmed earlier decisions saying exceptions must be taken and embodied in a formal bill during the same court term, or within time actually allowed by a rule or order of that court. Once the court’s term has expired and the court no longer has control, it cannot then allow or approve a bill of exceptions. Consent of the parties cannot restore the court’s lost power, and the policy of the law favors timely end to litigation. Applying those principles, the Court answered the certified question in the affirmative and treated the late-signed bill as invalid.
Real world impact
The ruling makes clear that lawyers cannot rely on their own agreement to cure a late record entry after a court loses authority. Trial judges and litigants must secure any extension by the court while the term still controls the case, or risk that late bills will not become part of the record and cannot be used on appeal.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?