present the bill to the judge for his approval and signature. First Nat. Bank of Omaha v Bartlett, 8 Neb. 319; (1888) State, ex rel. Covey, v. Gaslin, 25 Neb. 71 (40 N. W. 601.) 95. (1882.) Where a bill of exceptions was signed without being submitted to adverse party for examination and amendment, a motion to quash the same was sustained. Uhling v. Schellenberg, 12 Neb. 609 (12 N. W. 272); (1882) Howard v. Lamaster, 13 Neb. 221 (13 N. W. 211); (1884) Madsen v. Norfolk Mill Co., 15 Neb. 644 (19 N. W. 636). 96. (1882.) If there is no receipt or other evidence in the record, an affidavit stating the delivery of the bill to the adverse party must show when and to whom the bill was delivered. Howard v. Lamaster, 13 Neb. 221 (13 N. W. 211). 97. (1892.) In appeal cases, where the interests of the parties plaintiff or defendant are so connected that the appeal necessarily will bring up the entire record, the failure to serve the bill of exceptions on some of such parties will not be cause for quashing the bill. Reynolds v. Dietz, 34 Neb. 265 (51 N. W. 747). the 98. (1892.) Where there are two or more principal defendants against whom plaintiff is seeking to enforce a claim, there being no particular controversy between them, service of the bill of exceptions upon one of such defendants or his attorney within the time fixed by statute will be sufficient. Crane v. Keck, 35 Neb. 683 (53 N. W. 606). 100a. (1908.) A bill of exceptions will not be quashed upon the motion of an appellee, to whom it had been properly submitted, because it was not served upon another party to the action. First Nat. Bank of Plattsmouth v. Gibson, 80 Neb. 577 (114 N. W. 777). Proposed amendments. 101. (1881.) It is the duty of the adverse party, upon receiving a bill of exceptions, to propose amendments thereto, and return such bill with his proposed amendments within the time limited by statute to the party proposing the bill. Deck v. Smith, 12 Neb. 205 (10 N. W. 705). 102. (1888.) A party seeking a bill of exceptions, who presents the proposed bill to the adverse party or his attorneys for amendment, within the time fixed by law or the order of the court, is entitled to have such bill examined by such adverse party, and amendments thereto proposed, if necessary. State, ex rel. Covey, v. Gaslin, 25 Neb. 71 (40 N. W. 601). 103. (1893.) Section 311 of the code makes it the duty of a party to whom is submitted a draft of a bill of exceptions for examination to return it with his proposed amendments, if any, within ten days. Fitzgerald v. Brandt, 36 Neb. 683 (54 N. W. 992). 104. (1898.) In settling a bill of exceptions it is not sufficient that a paper containing suggestions of amendments be attached, and that it be disclosed that such amendments were allowed. Amendments which are allowed should be actually made Brennan-Love Co. 99. (1893.) in the body of the bill. In a case where appellees with adverse interests were represented by different counsel, the appellant left the draft of a proposed bill of exceptions at the office of one of appellees' counsel and notified the attorneys for the others that it was there for inspection. Held, Not a sufficient submission under section 311 of the code; and that the bill would be quashed as to all appellees to whom it had not otherwise been submitted. Fitzgerald v. Brandt, 36 Neb. 683 (54 N. W. 992). v. McIntosh, 56 Neb. 140 (76 N. W. 461). 100. (1896.) A proposed bill of exceptions is not submitted to the adverse party or his attorney of record, within the meaning of section 311 of the code, by leaving it at the office of the attorney in his absence. Lancaster County Bank v. Gillilan, 49 Neb. 165 (68 N. W. 352). 105. (1901.) A bill of exceptions allowed by the trial judge is not invalidated nor rendered incomplete or defective by failure upon his part to pass upon proposed amendments; if the party proposing such amendments desires to rely upon or take advantage of them in the supreme court, he should take the proper steps to require a ruling thereon. Warren v. Wales, 1 Unof. 446 (95 N. W. 610). Effect of failure to propose amendments. 106. (1882.) An adverse party upon receiving a bill of exceptions must propose amendments thereto and return the same with his proposed amendments to the party preparing the bill within the time limited by law. If no amendments are proposed the judge, if satisfied of the correctness of the bill, may sign the same. Fitzgerald v. Hollingsworth, 13 Neb. 199 (13 N. W. 209). 107. (1883.) Where a bill of exceptions purporting to contain all the testimony is submitted to the adverse party for amendment, and such party certifies that he has no amendments to propose to the same, the court will presume that such bill contains all the evidence, notwithstanding the certificate may not fully so certify. Cattle v. Haddor, 14 Neb. 59 (14 N. W. 803); (1898) Columbia Nat. Bank v. German Nat. Bank, 56 Neb. 803 (77 N. W. 346). Stipulations as to allowance or settlement. Stipulation authorizing clerk to settle bill, see post, §§ 195-202. 108. (1878.) A stipulation of the attorneys in the cause, stating that the record is a correct transcript of the proceedings, may be sufficient to justify the judge in the court below in signing the bill as presented, but forms no basis for the supreme court to consider the matters embodied in the bill of exceptions. Credit Foncier of America v. Rogers, 8 Neb. 34. 109. (1890.) A stipulation of the attorneys in a cause stating that the record is a correct transcript of the proceedings, or that the files annexed are the original files, and that the transcript may be accepted as the bill of exceptions, may be sufficient to justify the judge in the court below in signing the same as a bill of exceptions, but forms no sufficient basis for the supreme court to consider the same as a bill of exceptions, without having been settled and signed as such. McCarn v. Cooley, 30 Neb. 552 (46 N. W. 715). Objections. 110. (1876.) A motion to strike a petition in error from the files on the ground that what purports to be a bill of exceptions cannot be so considered will not be entertained. This objection must be taken either by a motion to quash the exceptions, or on the final hearing. Mewis v. Johnson Harvester Co., 5 Neb. 217. 111. (1885.) A party who moves to quash a bill of exceptions must specifically point out in his motion the objections complained of. Smith v. Kaiser, 17 Neb. 184 (22 N. W. 368). 112. (1885.) Where a motion supported by affidavit is filed to strike the bill of exceptions from the record, upon the ground that it has been mutilated by adding certain words thereto since being signed, the motion will be overruled unless it is made to appear that the mutilation was made by the plaintiff in error or his attorney. Clark v. Geil, 17 Neb. 284 (22 N. W. 562). 113. (1885.) An objection to a bill of exceptions, on the ground that the clerk has not certified that it is the original bill, may be taken either by motion to quash the exceptions, or on the final hearing. Hogan v. O'Niel, 17 Neb. 641 (24 N. W. 213). 114. (1891.) A motion to quash a bill of exceptions, being a technical objection, must itself be free from fault; therefore where the grounds assigned are "because the same (the bill) was not made and signed as required by law," the motion should be overruled, unless there is a total want of some material requirement-such as the signature of the judge. Walker v. Morse, 33 Neb. 650 (50 N. W. 1055). [Overruled. Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co. v. Curtis, 38 Neb. 520.] 115. (1898.) On a motion to quash a bill of exceptions the supreme court may receive in evidence a certified copy of an affidavit not included in the record for review. Brownell v. Fuller, 54 Neb. 586 (74 N. W. 1105). 116. (1900.) A motion to quash a bill of exceptions is of no avail where no bill has been settled. Rhea v. State, 61 Neb. 15 (84 N. W. 414). 117. (1901.) Objections to a bill of exceptions cannot be heard from a party asking an affirmance of a judgment expressly based upon it. Armstrong v. Mayer, 1 Unof. 119 (95 N. W. 483). Waiver of objections. 118. (1882.) A motion to quash a bill of exceptions will not be entertained after a case, which has been reached in the reguDietlar order of business, is submitted. rich v. Lincoln & N. R. Co., 13 Neb. 500 (14 N. W. 528). 119. (1883.) Where an attorney of record, to whom a bill of exceptions is presented for examination, proposes amendments thereto without objection, he cannot afterwards be heard to complain that it was not presented to him within the statutory time. Omaha & N. R. Co. v. Redick, 14 Neb. 55 (14 N. W. 665); (1890) Warren v. Brown, 31 Neb. 8 (47 N. W. 633). referee, who made a report, and the testimony and exceptions taken before him were returned to the court, but not signed. Exceptions were filed to the report, which were overruled, and judgment entered on the report, and the judge signed the bill of exceptions taken before the referee. Held, That as no objection was made in the district court to the bill of exceptions because not signed by the referee, the objection will not be considered by the supreme court. Cattle v. Haddox, 14 Neb. 59 (14 N. W. 803). 121. (1883.) If a party object to the bill for any reason other than that it is inaccurate, he must rely upon such objections and refuse to receive and retain the bill for examination. Cheney v. Cooper, 14 Neb. 413 (16 N. W. 433). 122. (1883.) Where a bill of exceptions is returned by the attorneys for the adverse party, signed and approved by them after the expiration of the statutory time for filing, the objection that it is filed out of time is thereby waived. Cheney v. Cooper, 14 Neb. 413 (16 N. W. 433). 123. (1885.) Where a bill of exceptions was submitted to the adverse party for correction, and amendments made to the same and then duly signed, it is a waiver of all objections as to matters of form. Smith v. Kaiser, 17 Neb. 184 (22 N. W. 368). 124. (1888.) Objections to matters of form in a bill of exceptions by which it is sought to quash the bill, must be made within a reasonable time after bill is filed in appellate court; and where not made for more than a year after filing of transcript, and after case is set for trial and plaintiff has prepared and printed briefs on the main issue, such objections will be deemed to be waived. Yates v. Kinney, 23 Neb. 648 (37 N. W. 590); (1897) Nash v. Costello, 50 Neb. 325 (69 N. W. 969); (1897) Thompson v. Missouri P. R. Co., 50 Neb. 330 (70 N. W. 385). 125. (1888). Where an original bill of exceptions is sent by the clerk of a district court to the supreme court, it is his duty to certify the same; but this objection may be waived by the parties, and will be deemed to be waived where the bill is treated by the adverse party as perfect, either by affirmative acts or long acquiescence. Kinney, 23 Neb. 648 (37 N. W. 590). [Overruled as to waiver. 47 Neb. 198; 47 Neb. 393; 47 Neb. 397.] Yates v. 126. (1888.) A party seeking a bill of exceptions, who presents the proposed bill to the adverse party or his attorneys for amendment, within the time fixed by law or the order of the court, is entitled to have such bill examined by such adverse party, and amendments thereto proposed, if necessary; and if, instead of such proposed amendments, the bill is returned, on the alleged ground that the time in which to prepare the same had expired, it will be deemed a waiver of objections to the bill itself. State, ex rel. Covey, v. Gaslin, 25 Neb. 71 (40 N. W. 601). 127. (1889.) Where a bill of exceptions is served after time, right of objection thereto on that ground is not waived by retaining the bill more than the ten days. City of Seward v. Klenk, 27 Neb. 615 (43 N. W. 407). 128. (1891.) When a proposed bill of exceptions is served upon the adverse party, after the period has elapsed within which it should have been submitted and signed, and the bill is returned to the party seeking its allowance without proposing any amendments or making any objections as to the time he received it, the judge should allow the bill. State, ex rel. Downing, v. Gaslin, 32 Neb. 291 (49 N. W. 353). 129. (1892.) Where a defendant fails to file a motion to quash a bill of exceptions until after briefs upon the merits have been made and served the court will consider the objection waived. Crane v. Keck, 35 Neb. 683 (53 N. W. 606). 130. (1893.) Upon the consideration of a motion for a new trial where there were used several affidavits identified by the clerk of the court, and counsel for the respective parties having stipulated that the affidavits contained all the evidence offered on either side on said motion, and counsel, upon whom was served the proposed bill of exceptions, having returned the same without suggestion or amendment, and the said clerk having settled the proposed bill of exceptions, a motion to strike out said affidavits because not shown to have been used on the determination of said motion, or identified in the bill of exceptions, must be overruled. Wheeler v. Olson, 37 Neb. 562 (56 N. W. 309). 131. (1894.) When the party suggesting amendments to a bill of exceptions appears before the judge and insists that his amendments be allowed, without making any ob jections as to the sufficiency of the notice, or that the bill was not submitted to the judge in time, he waives all objections as to the sufficiency of the notice, and as to the time the bill was presented to the judge for his approval and signature. Schields v. Horbach, 40 Neb. 103 (58 N. W. 720). 132. (1896.) The omission of the clerk's certificate authenticating the bill is not waived by failure of the parties to object thereto on that ground. Romberg v. Fokken, 47 Neb. 198 (66 N. W. 282); Union P. R. Co. v. Kinney, 47 Neb. 393 (66 N. W. 449). 133. (1897.) Objection to a bill of exceptions that it was not presented for examination and amendment within the statutory period, not made before the bill was signed and allowed by the trial judge, but raised for the first time in the supreme court, will not be considered. Thompson v. Missouri P. R. Co., 50 Neb. 329 (69 N. W. 1119). 134. (1897.) Where a bill is served upon the adverse party after the time therefor had expired, and the parties stipulated in writing that the trial judge should sign and allow the bill, it is a waiver of the objection that the bill was not presented within the time fixed by law or the order of the court. Thompson v. Missouri P. R. Co.. 50 Neb. 329 (69 N. W. 1119) 135, 136. (1898.) Objection to a bill of exceptions because it was not presented for examination and amendment in the statutory period, made for the first time in the appellate court nearly two years after filing transcript, and after service of briefs upon the merits by the party seeking the reversal, comes too late. Saunders v. Bates, 54 Neb. 209 (74 N. W. 578). 137. (1898.) Defendant in error did not waive his right to move to quash the bill by appearing before the trial judge merely to object to its allowance, nor by failing to file the motion until after the time had expired within which the plaintiff in error was required to file his briefs to the merits, such briefs not having been filed. Supreme Tent of the Knights of the Maccabees v. Kreig, 54 Neb. 588 (74 N. W. 1104). Authentication by clerk. 138. (1880.) Affidavits used on a hearing in the district court must be preserved by a bill of exceptions in order to be considered by the supreme court. A certificate by the clerk of the district court that such affidavits were used on the hearing of the cause must be disregarded, not being authorized by the statute. Aultman v. Howe, 10 Neb. 8 (4 N. W. 357). 139. (1882.) A bill of exceptions must be authenticated as provided by law. Edwards v. Kearney, 13 Neb. 502 (14 N. W. 536). 140. (1885.) A bill of exceptions not certified by the clerk of the trial court as being a part of the record in the said court, nor as being the original bill of exceptions in such case, and which appears never to have been filed by or presented for filing to the clerk of such court, will be quashed on motion. Flynn v. Jordan, 17 Neb. 518 (23 N. W. 519, 562). 141. (1885.) Where the original bill of exceptions in a cause tried in the district court is intended to be used in the supreme court, the clerk of the district court must attach his certificate to the same that it is the original bill. Hogan v. O'Niel, 17 Neb. 641 (24 N. W. 213); (1888) Yates v. Kinney, 23 Neb. 648 (37 N. W. 590). 142. (1895.) A bill of exceptions will not be considered for any purpose unless properly authenticated. Nelson v. Johnson, 44 Neb. 7 (62 N. W. 244); (1896) Felber v. Gooding, 47 Neb. 38 (66 N. W. 39); (1896) Childerson v. Childerson, 47 Neb. 162 (66 N. W. 281); (1896) First Nat. Bank of Greenwood v. Cass County, 47 Neb. 172 (66 N. W. 300); (1896) Andres v. Kridler, 47 Neb. 585 (66 N. W. 649); (1896) Sieberling & Co. v. Fletcher, 47 Neb. 847 (66 N. W. 839); (1896) Derse v. Strause, 49 Neb. 665 (68 N. W. 1021); (1896) German Nat. Bank of Beatrice v. Terry, 48 Neb. 863 (67 N. W. 856); (1896) Spurck v. Dean, 49 Neb. 66 (68 N. W. 375); (1896) Royse v. State Nat. Bank of St. Joseph, 50 Neb. 16 (69 N. W. 301); (1897) Chicago Lumber Co. v. Benjamin, 50 Neb. 143 (69 N. W. 769); (1897) Reuther v. Zimbleman, 50 Neb. 165 (69 N. W. 837); (1897) Behrends v. Beyschlag, 50 Neb. 304 (69 N. W. 835); (1897) Talcott v. Field, 50 Neb. €35 (70 N. W. 229); (1897) State, ex rel. Gray, v. School District, 51 Neb. 236 (70 N. W. 948); (1897) Union P. R. Co. v. Thorne, 51 Neb. 472 (70 N. W. 1119); (1897) Hodgin v. Whitcomb, 51 Neb. 617 (71 N. W. 314); (1897) Hazelet v. Holt County, 51 Neb. 724); (1897) Gray v. Elbling. 51 Neb. 726 (71 N. W. 720); (1897) Costello v. Kottas, 52 Neb. 15 (71 N. W. 950); (1897) Hale v. Sheehan, 52 Neb. 184 (71 N. W. 1019); (1897) Bryant v. Cunningham, 52 Neb. 717 (72 N. W. 1054); (1898) Shaffer v. Vincent, 53 Neb. 449 (73 N. W. 932); (1898) Harris v. Barton, 53 Neb. 568 (74 N. W. 49); (1898) Henley v. Evans, 54 Neb. 187 (74 N. W. 578); (1898) Coy v. Miller, 54 Neb. 499 (74 N. W. 958); (1898) Coad v. Barry, 57 Neb. 177 (77 N. W. 341); (1899) Noble v. Neal, 57 Neb. 797 (78 N. W. 383); (1899) Murphey v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 58 Neb. 428 (78 N. W. 71415); (1901) Faust v. Deering, 63 Neb. 244 (88 N. W. 477); (1902) Palmer v. Mizner, 2 Unof. 903 (93 N. W. 1121); (1907) O'Conner v. Fields, 79 Neb. 840 (113 N. W. 528). 143. A bill of exceptions which has not been authenticated by the certificate of the clerk will be disregarded. (1896) Union P. R. Co. v. Kinney, 47 Neb. 393 (66 N. W. 449); (1897) Chicago Lumber Co. v. Benjamin, 50 Neb. 143 (69 N. W. 769); (1897) Hazelet v. Holt County, 51 Neb. 724 (71 N. W. 717); (1897) Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Ringo, 52 Neb. 163 (71 N. W. 1016); (1897) Kroeger v. Nieman, 52 Neb. 285 (72 N. W. 216); (1897) Brockman Commission Co. v. Lang, 52 Neb. 506 (72 N. W. 856); (1897) Winquest v. Schaefer, 52 Neb. 626 (72 N. W. 1058); (1905) Miles v. State, 74 Neb. 684 (105 N. W. 301). 144. (1896.) A bill of exceptions in a cause tried in the district court must be authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of such court, to entitle it to be considered in the supreme court. Romberg v. Fokken, 47 Neb. 198 (66 N. W. 282). 145. (1896.) A bill of exceptions in a cause tried in the district court must be filed with the clerk of that court, and if the original bill is to be used in the supreme court, it must be authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of the trial court. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. v. Gerhold, 47 Neb. 397 (66 N. W. 538). 146. (1896.) To authenticate a document attached to a transcript as the bill of exceptions settled in the case a certificate of the clerk, under the seal of the district court, identifying the document as the original, or a copy of the bill of exceptions, is essential. Merrill v. Equitable Farm & Stock Co., 49 Neb. 198 (68 N. W. 365). 147. (1896.) A bill of exceptions must be certified by the clerk of the trial court as being a part of the record in said court, or as being the original bill of exceptions in the case, in order that the matters therein may be considered by the supreme court. Yankton, N. & S. W. R. Co. v. State, 49 Neb. 272 (68 N. W. 487); (1897) Groneweg v. Mathewson, 52 Neb. 591 (72 N. W. 844). 148. (1897.) Where there is satisfactory evidence that there had been a proper authentication of a bill of exceptions attached thereto, which, by accident, had become detached and lost, such showing was held sufficient secondary evidence to justify consideration of the bill of exceptions as such. Winters v. Means, 50 Neb. 209 (69 N. W. 753). 149. (1897.) Where on appeal, the bill of exceptions is uncertified by the clerk, and the pleadings support the decree rendered, it will be affirmed. Berger v. Lincoln County, 50 Neb. 687 (70 N. W. 235); (1901) Porter v. Detrick, 2 Unof. 29 (96 N. W. 271). 150. (1903.) The supreme court will, on its own motion, refuse to consider a document appearing in the record and purporting to be a bill of exceptions but in no way authenticated as such by the certificate of the clerk of the lower court. Palmer v. Mizner, 70 Neb. 200 (97 N. W. 334). 151. (1905.) A bill of exceptions will be quashed where it is not certified and identified in such manner that the supreme court may know that it is the identical bill allowed by the trial court, and the whole thereof. State v. Paxton, 75 Neb. 214 (106 N. W. 166). 152. (1906.) A bill of exceptions must be filed with the clerk of the trial court, and if the original bill is to be used in the supreme court it must be authenticated by said clerk. A document attached to a transcript and purporting to be a bill of exceptions cannot be considered, unless it be authenticated as such by the certificate of the clerk. Duncan v. State, 75 Neb. 764 (106 N. W. 1014). Sufficiency. 153. (1880.) A mere certificate of the clerk of the district court that certain affidavits were used on the hearing in the court below is not such an authentication as is required by the statute. Aultman v. Howe, 10 Neb. 8 (4 N. W. 357). 154. (1883.) A bill of exceptions in a cause tried in the district court must be filed in that court, and if the original bill is used in the supreme court, the clerk of the district court must attach his certificate to |