rules of the common law, and the acts of Congress, or upon the formula prescribed by the Louisiana code of practice? Unquestionably the force and operation of the verdict when the case is brought here, depends upon the rules of the common law. It is conclusive upon this court as to the fact found, while in Louisiana it is open to revision and reversal in the appellate court. And if the conclusive force and effect of a verdict depends upon the rules of the common law, it would seem to follow, that what is a sufficient finding by the jury to constitute a legal verdict upon the issues joined, and to make it operate as such, must also depend upon the rules of the common law, except in so far as they may be modified by acts of Congress. And while this court is bound to give effect to the verdict according to the rules of the common law, it can hardly be required to look elsewhere, in order to ascertain what find of the jury is a verdict, and entitled to the conclusive effect which the common law gives it.

"At common law a writ of error is the sole remedy to review a judgment rendered in an action at law brought before a court of record." 16

In Parish vs. Ellis," the Supreme Court of the United States said:

"If the proceedings in the territorial courts were proceedings at law, and not in equity, we have no jurisdiction to hear the case, because it is not brought here by writ of error. The Act of Congress of July 14, 1832, Sec. 3 (4 Story's Laws, 2330), declares that the regulations prescribed by the second section of the Act entitled 'An act to amend the judicial system of the United States,' approved the 3d of March, 1893, as far as said regulations shall be practicable, shall 10 Ellis vs. State, 3 Iowa, 217; R. Co., 105 U. S., 263. 17 16 Peters, 451.

United States vs. Union Pac.

be observed in respect to all writs of error and appeals from the said Court of Appeals in the said territory to the Supreme Court of the United States. And the Act of 1803, thus referred to in the law of 1832, gives the right of appeal in cases of equity or admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and prize or no prize, but leaves the cases of law to be brought up by writ of error as provided for by the Act of 1789. And it has always been held that a case at law cannot, under the Act of 1803, be brought here by appeal."

Only a party to the record, or one who has been injured by the judgment, is entitled to a writ of error.

SECTION 64. BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS.

"A bill of exception is a formal statement in writing of exceptions taken by a party on the trial to a ruling, decision, charge or opinion of the trial judge, setting out the proceedings on the trial, the acts of the trial judge alleged to be erroneous, the objections and exceptions taken thereto, together with the grounds therefor, and authenticated by the trial judge according to law." 18

""The bill of exceptions is a simple history of the case as tried, and should contain nothing more or less than the facts as they appeared to the court and jury from the commencement of the trial until the final judgment by the court.' 19

"The bill of exceptions was a formal statement for the purposes of a writ of error or appeal to a court possessing the proper jurisdiction, by way of review of the exceptions that had already been taken upon the trial." 20

18 1 Burrill Law Dictionary, page

205.

19 Gallagher vs. State, 17 Fla., 379. 20 Caston vs. McGuire, 23 Ind., 356.

The bill of exceptions was created by the Statute of Westminster II (13 Ed. I), Chapter 31. As it is of statutory origin and against the common law, the right must be strictly construed.21

21 Garth vs. Caldwell, 72 Mo., 630.

THIRTY-FIFTH SUBJECT.

Code Pleading.

BY

AARON HEIMS, LL. B.

PROFESSOR OF THE LAW OF PRACTICE, PLEADING AND EVIDENCE AT THE ILLINOIS COLLEGE OF LAW.