cause in which such decision, so excepted to, is assigned as a reason for a new trial, such motion shall carry such decision and exception forward to the time of ruling on such motion, and time may be then given by the court within which to reduce such exception to writing. Exceptions must be taken at the time the decision is made. Coan v. Grimes, 63 Ind. 21; Sohn v. Marion, etc., Co., 73 Ind. 77; Kolle v. Foltz, 74 Ind. 54; Matsinger v. Fort, 118 Ind. 107; LaPorte v. Organ, 3 App. 525.

Time may be given to reduce exceptions to writing, but not to take an exception. Coan v. Grimes, 63 Ind. 21; Sohn v. Marion, etc., Co., 73 Ind. 77.

A recital that exceptions were taken "at the proper time," is sufficient. Crandall v. Bank, 61 Ind. 349.

The exception must be reduced to writing at the time taken unless time is given. Goodwin v. Smith, 72 Ind. 113; Sohn v. Marion, etc., Co., 73 Ind. 77; Railway Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381.

The record need not show that time was given to file bills of exception that are filed at the term at which the exception is taken. Ogborn v. Hoffman, 52 Ind. 439; Volger r. Sidener, 86 Ind. 545; Railway Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381; Noblesville, etc., Co. v. Teter, 1 App. 322.

When time is given after term to file a bill of exceptions, it can not embrace rulings upon pleadings or motions made before the trial. Smith v. Flack, 95 Ind. 116.

Motions, together with the action of the court, must be put in the record by bill of exceptions. Turnpike Co. v. Sidener, 40 Ind. 424; Scotten v. Devilbiss, 60 Ind. 37; Town v. Gebhart, 61 Ind. 187; Myers v. Conway, 62 Ind. 474; Board v. Montgomery, 109 Ind. 69.

The following matters must be put in the record by a bill of exceptions, or order of court

Motions to paragraph pleadings and for bills of particulars. Nichols v. State, er rel., 65 Ind. 512.

Exceptions to reports of guardians. Angevine v. Ward, 66 Ind. 460.

Motions to dismiss appeals unless the reasons are apparent on the face of the record. Board v. Small, 61 Ind. 318; Washington Co. v. Lay, 103 Ind. 48; Freshour v. Logansport Co., 104 Ind. 463.

Pleadings and papers stricken out. Hill v. Jamieson, 16 Ind. 125; Ammerman v. Crosby, 26 Ind. 451; Schmidt v. Colley, 29 Ind. 120; Stott v. Smith, 70 Ind. 298; Scott r. Board, 101 Ind. 42; Carrothers v. Carrothers, 107 Ind. 530.

Affidavits for continuance and change of venue. Cochran v. Dodd, 16 Ind. 476; Norton v. State, 106 Ind. 163; Horton v. Wilson, 25 Ind. 316.

In general, all papers other than pleadings must be put in the record by a bill of exceptions. Matlock v. Todd, 19 Ind. 130; Clegg v. Fithian, 32 Ind. 90; Shields v. McMahan, 101 Ind. 591; Beck v. State, 72 Ind. 250; State v. Cooper, 103 Ind. 75; Kleespies v. State, 106 Ind. 383.

Written instruments may be made a part of a bill of exceptions by a proper reference of "here insert." Turnpike Co. v. Sidener, 40 Ind. 424; Goodwine v. Crane, 41 Ind. 335; Clay. Clark, 76 Ind. 161; Longworth v. Higham, 89 Ind. 352.

As to what is a proper reference to an instrument to authorize it to be copied into a bill, see Railroad Co. v. Butler, 103 Ind. 31.

Parties can not by agreement have writings inserted in a bill of exceptions. Burdick t. Hunt, 43 Ind. 381.

If an instrument is once properly in the record, it may be made part of a bill by a reference thereto. Smith v. Lisher, 23 Ind. 500; Henry v. Thomas, 118 Ind. 23.

Papers improperly copied into the record can not be made a part of a bill by referring to the same. Douglass v. State, 72 Ind. 385; Kesler v. Myers, 41 Ind. 543; Carver v. Carver, 44 Ind. 265; Kimball v. Loomis, 62 Ind. 201; Colee v. State, 75 Ind. 511.

Instructions to jury can not be made a part of the record by attaching them to a bill of exceptions. They must be copied into the bill, or a proper reference of "here insert." Irwin v. Smith, 72 Ind. 482.

Parol evidence must be inserted in full into a bill of exceptions before it is signed. Stewart v. Rankin, 39 Ind. 161; Goodwine v. Crane, 41 Ind. 335; Railway Co. v. Griffin, 45 Ind. 369; Shugart v. Miles, 125 Ind. 445.

All evidence must be made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions. Anderson v. Lane, 32 Ind. 102; Railroad Co. v. Irish, 40 Ind. 277; Burdick v. Hunt, 43 Ind. 381; Martin v. Martin, 74 Ind. 207.

An agreed statement of facts must be put into the record by a bill of exceptions. Citizens Co. v. Harris, 108 Ind. 392.

The evidence taken down by a stenographer must be bodily inserted into the bill of exceptions. Wagoner v. Wilson, 108 Ind. 210; Weir Co. v. Walmsley, 110 Ind. 242; Colt v. McConnell, 116 Ind. 249; Railway Co. v. Voight, 122 Ind. 288; Clark v. State, 125 Ind. 1.

The bill alone must be looked to in determining whether the evidence taken by a reporter is inserted therein or not. Stevens v. Stevens, 127 Ind. 560.

The evidence taken by a stenographer can not be put into a bill by a "here insert." Stone v. Brown, 116 Ind. 78; Doyal v. Landes, 119 Ind. 479; Patterson v. Churchman, 122 Ind. 379.

The bill of exceptions must state that it contains all the evidence given on the trial in order to show that all the evidence is in the record. Printing Co. v. Morss, 60 Ind. 153; McDonald v. Elfes, 61 Ind. 279; Sessengut v. Posey, 67 Ind. 408; Kleyla v. State, 112 Ind. 146.

A statement that the bill contains all the evidence introduced on the trial is sufficient. Stair v. Richardson, 108 Ind. 429; Jones v. Layman, 123 Ind. 569.

If on overruling a motion for a new trial time is given to file a bill of exceptions, such bill may include all exceptions taken during the trial. Ryman v. Crawford, 86 Ind. 262; Pitzer v. Railway Co., 80 Ind. 569; Kopelke v. Kopelke, 112 Ind. 435.

Exceptions filed to the report of a master commissioner can not be put into a bill by "here insert." Lewis v. Godman, 129 Ind. 359.

Oral instructions to the jury must be copied into the bill of exceptions before it is signed. Sinclair v. Hanna, 3 App. 164.

639. (627.) Form of exception.-404. No particular form of exception is required. The objection must be stated with so much of the evidence as is necessary to explain it, and no more, and the whole as briefly as possible.

640. (628.) Exception on record, how noted.-405. Where the decision objected to is entered on the record, and the grounds of objection appear in the entry, the exception may be taken by the party causing it to be noted at the end of the decision that he excepts.

What is not by law a part of the record does not become so by being copied into the transcript. Scotten v. Divilbiss, 60 Ind. 37; Coffman v. Reeves, 62 Ind. 334.

Exceptions must be taken to each ruling separately. Johnson v. McCulloch, 89 Ind. 270; Leyner v. State, 8 Ind. 490.

Exceptions must clearly indicate the ruling excepted to, and point out the error complained of. Creager v. Langford, 87 Ind. 177; Clay v. Clark, 76 Ind. 161; Railway Co. v. Parker, 94 Ind. 91.

If the error is apparent on the face of the record it is sufficient to have the exception noted on the record. Redinbo v. Fretz, 99 Ind. 458.

641. (629.) Bill, how signed and filed-Entry.-406. When the

record does not otherwise show the decision or grounds of objection thereto, the party objecting must, within such time as may be allowed, present to the judge a proper bill of exceptions, which, if true, he shall promptly sign and cause it to be filed in the cause; if not true, the judge shall correct, sign, and cause it to be filed without delay. When so filed, it shall be a part of the record; and delay of the judge in signing and filing the same shall not deprive the party objecting of the benefit thereof. The date of the presentation shall be stated in the bill of exceptions, and the entry shall show the time granted, if beyond the term, for presenting the same.

No person except a judge can sign a bill of exceptions. Smith v. Baugh, 32 Ind. 163; Ketcham v. Hill, 42 Ind. 64; McKeen v. Board, 60 Ind. 280; Reed v. Worland, 64 Ind. 216.

The successor in office of a judge may sign bills of exception that his predecessor might have signed. Ketcham v. Hill, 42 Ind. 64; McKeen v. Boord, 60 Ind. 280; Reed v. Worland, 64 Ind. 216.

Special judges have power to give time to file and may sign bills of exception. Lerch t. Emmett, 44 Ind. 331; Shugart v. Miles, 125 Ind. 445.

A judge pro tem. who did not hear the evidence can not sign a bill of exceptions containing the evidence, in vacation. Travellers' Co. v. Leeds, 38 Ind. 444.

When there is a change of venue, the judge who tries the cause must sign the bills of exception. Lee v. Hills, 66 Ind. 474.

If an attorney in a cause afterwards becomes judge of the court he can not sign bills of exception in the cause. Waterman v. Morgan, 114 Ind. 237.

A judge can not authorize another to sign his name to a bill of exceptions. Railway Co. v. Rogers, 48 Ind. 427.

A bill should not be signed until all matters required to be copied into it, are copied. Cluck v. State, 40 Ind 263; Blessing v. Blair, 45 Ind. 546.

Master commissioners trying causes should sign bills of exception. Clark v. Van Court, 100 Ind. 113; Lee v. State, ex rel., 88 Ind. 256.

If a judge improperly refuses to sign a bill after presentation and demand, he may be compelled to do so by mandate. Jelley v. Roberts, 50 Ind. 1; State v. Dyer, 99 Ind. 426; State v. Slick, 86 Ind. 501.

When a judge improperly refuses to sign a bill, the rights of the parties are not affected. State v. Slick, 86 Ind. 501.

Bills of exception must be presented to the judge within the time fixed, and the date of presentation must be shown on the face of the bill. Joseph v. Mather, 110 Ind. 114; Burchart. Burger, 115 Ind. 123; Rigler v. Rigler, 120 Ind. 431; McCormick Co. v. Maas, 121 Ind. 132; Bierly v. Harrison, 123 Ind. 516; City v. Fields, 125 Ind. 323; White v. Gregory, 126 Ind. 95.

An endorsement upon the bill of the time of presentation of the bill is not sufficient. McCoy v. State, ex rel., 121 Ind. 160; Shewalter v. Bergman, 123 Ind. 155; Hormann v. Hartmetz, 128 Ind. 353; Plotz v. Friend, 5 App. 146.

Absence of the judge is no excuse for not presenting the bill to him within the time fixed. Kirby v. Bowland, 69 Ind. 290; State v. Dyer, 99 Ind. 426.

The supreme court will not inquire into a question as to why a bill was not presented to the judge in time. Wishmier v. State, ex rel., 110 Ind. 523; Rigler v. Rigler, 120 Ind. 431.

If a bill is signed and filed within the time fixed, a failure to state in the bill the time of presentation is immaterial. Hale v. Matthews, 118 Ind. 527; Noblesville, etc., Co. v. Teter, 1 App. 322.

If a bill of exceptions is presented to the judge in time, his failure to sign and file

the same until after the time fixed will not affect the rights of the parties. Hamm v. Romine, 98 Ind. 77; Robinson v. Anderson, 106 Ind. 152; Railway Co. v. Cosby, 107 Ind. 32; Vincennes Co. v. White, 124 Ind. 376; Wysor v. Johnson, 130 Ind. 270.

The judge must approve the bill and sign the same as evidence thereof. Harvey v. State, 5 App. 422.

Bills of exceptions must be presented to the judge within the time fixed for filing. Andis v. Personett, 108 Ind. 202; McCormick Co. v. Maas, 121 Ind. 132.

If only a part of the bill is presented within the time fixed no portion of the bill will be considered. Wysor v. Johnson, 130 Ind. 270.

The judge may amend a bill after signing and before it is filed. Longworth v. Higham, 89 Ind. 352.

The judge may correct a bill although both parties agree that it is correct. Beavers v. State, 58 Ind. 530.

The court has power to correct a bill, or cause a new one to be made, after the bill has been filed. Railroad Co. v. Bowen, 49 Ind. 154; Marley v. Hornaday, 69 Ind. 106; Hannah v. Dorrell, 73 Ind. 465; Morgan v. Hays, 91 Ind. 132.

A bill can not be amended after the close of the term at which it was filed. Seig v. Long, 72 Ind. 18. See Harris v. Tomlinson, 130 Ind. 426.

A bill can not be amended on parol evidence alone. Hamilton v. Burch, 28 Ind. 233. A bill of exceptions may be amended by a nunc pro tunc entry. Harris v. Tomlinson, 130 Ind. 426.

When a bill of exceptions is filed after term the record must show that time was given to file it. Nye v. Lewis, 65 Ind. 326; Sohn v. Gravel Road Co., 73 Ind. 77; Benson v. Baldwin, 108 Ind. 106; Engleman v. Arnold, 118 Ind. 81.

If a bill is filed at the term at which an exception is taken the record need not show that time was given. Ogborn v. Hoffman, 52 Ind. 439; Nichol v. Thomas, 53 Ind. 42; Volger v. Sidener, 86 Ind. 545; Railway Co. v. Fix, 88 Ind. 381; Wysor v. Johnson, 130 Ind. 270.

Time to file a bill of exceptions must be given at the term judgment is rendered. Rinehart v. Bowen, 44 Ind. 353.

If time is given until a day named to file a bill it must be filed before such day. Corbin v. Ketcham, 87 Ind. 138; Hartman v. Ringgenberg, 119 Ind. 72; De Haven v. De Haven, 46 Ind. 296; Harrison v. Price, 22 Ind. 165.

The record must show that a bill of exceptions was signed and filed within the time fixed. Marley v. Noblett, 42 Ind. 85; Bargis v. Farrar, 45 Ind. 41; Board v. Epperson, 50 Ind. 275; Kirby v. Bowland, 69 Ind. 290; Guirl v. Gillett, 124 Ind. 501. The transcript must show that a bill was filed. Loy v. Loy, 90 Ind. 404; Shulse v. McWilliams, 104 Ind. 512.

A statement in the transcript by the clerk of the filing of a bill is evidence thereof. Nofsinger v. Reynolds, 52 Ind. 218; Huff v. Krause, 63 Ind. 396.

If the certificate to the transcript is dated prior to the expiration of the time given to file a bill, it will appear to have been filed in time. Oliver v. Pate, 43 Ind. 132; Armstrong v. Harshman, 93 Ind. 216; Stout v. State, 90 Ind. 1.

If a bill is presented to the judge within the time given for filing it is sufficient. Creamer v. Sirp, 91 Ind. 366; Hamm v. Romine, 98 Ind. 77; Hull v. Louth, 109 Ind. 315; Vincennes Co. v. White, 124 Ind. 376; Garn v. Working, 5 App. 14.

As to the power of the court to extend the time for filing a bill of exceptions, see Railroad Co. v. Wilson, 16 Ind. 402; Noble v. Thompson, 24 Ind. 346; McElfatrick v. Cofforth, 29 Ind. 37; Robinson v. Johnson, 61 Ind. 535; Davidson v. State, 62 Ind. 276; Rigler v. Rigler, 120 Ind. 431.

By agreement of the parties the time fixed for filing of a bill may be extended. Lotz v. Briggs, 50 Ind. 346.

Bills of exceptions must be filed in the county in which the ruling excepted to is made. McMahan v. Spinning, 51 Ind. 187; Railroad Co. v. Leviston, 97 Ind. 488.

Bills of exception import absolute verity, and can not be impeached. Beavers v. State, 58 Ind. 530; Walls v. Railroad Co., 60 Ind. 56; Trust Co. v. Beville, 100 Ind. 309.

A bill of exceptions controls when it is in conflict with other portions of the record. State v. Flemons, 6 Ind. 279; Carmichael v. Shiel, 21 Ind. 66; Railway Co. v. Adams, 112 Ind. 302.

642. (630.) Question of law, how reserved.-407. Either party may reserve any question of law decided by the court during the progress of the cause, for the decision of the supreme court. Any question of law so reserved may be taken to the supreme court upon the bill of exceptions showing the decision; or, if it arises on demurrer, upon the pleadings involved. When the question so reserved is shown by the bill of exceptions, the party excepting shall notify the court that he intends to take the question of law to the supreme court upon the bill of exceptions only; and the court shall thereupon cause the bill of exceptions to be so made that it will distinctly and briefly embrace so much of the record of the cause only and the statement of the court, as will enable the supreme court to apprehend the particular question involved.

Parties must notify the court of their intention to appeal as to the reserved question. Bowen v. McDougle, 7 Ind. 414; Dillon v. Bell, 9 Ind. 320; Shugart v. Miles, 125 Ind. 445.

Only questions of law can be reviewed on appeal. Fouty v. Morrison, 73 Ind. 333; Woodward v. Baker, 116 Ind. 152.

An appeal can only be taken after final judgment. Taylor v. Board, 120 Ind. 121. The particular question reserved must appear to have arisen and to have been decided by the lower court. Short v. Stutsman, 81 Ind. 115.

If the question arises upon an instruction to the jury, the instruction must be in the record, and must have been excepted to. Short v. Stutsman, 81 Ind. 115.

The finding of the court on issues of fact can not be reviewed as a reserved question of law. Woodward v. Baker, 116 Ind. 152.

So much of the evidence as is necessary to a proper understanding of the question must be in the record. Hedrick v. Hedrick, 74 Ind. 78; Railway Co. v. Adams, 112 Ind. 302; Conner v. Town, 112 Ind. 517; Smith v. James, 131 Ind. 131.

The court may direct that papers and records may be copied into the bill of exceptions, but parol evidence can not be so put in. Shugart v. Miles, 125 Ind. 445.

A motion for a new trial is necessary in order to have a reserved question reviewed. Starner v. State, ex rel., 61 Ind. 360; Rousseau v. Corey, 62 Ind. 250; Conner v. Town, 112 Ind. 517.

A party may abandon his intention to appeal under this section and appeal under the section providing for appeals in general. McKendry v. Sinker Co., 1 App. 263.

A question upon the competency of a witness may be reserved under this section, and only so much of the evidence as is necessary to present the question need be in the record. Smith v. James, 131 Ind. 131.

643. (631.) Time for appeal-Supersedeas.-408. The party excepting may take the reserved question to the supreme court by appeal, at any time within one year after final judgment in the cause, and not afterward. The appeal in such case shall not stay proceedings upon. the judgment, unless so ordered by the supreme court or some judge thereof.

The failure to appeal upon a question reserved within one year did not invalidate a final appeal in the cause within three. Sanford v. Tucker, 54 Ind. 219.