R. N. LEATHERWOOD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. R. R. RICHARDSON et al., Defendants and Appellees

[Civil No. 1005. Filed March 22, 1907.] [89 Pac. 503.] R. N. LEATHERWOOD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. R. R. RICHARDSON et al., Defendants and Appellees. 1. Appeal and Error — Bill op Exceptions — Allowance—Necessity— Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1901, par. 1586, Construed. — A transcript of reporter’s notes which has not been allowed by the trial judge cannot be considered as a bill of exceptions under paragraph 1586, supra. 2. Same — Statement op Facts — Time por Filing — Supreme Court Rule No. 2 Construed. — A transcript of reporter’s notes which was not filed in the district court within the term at whieh a judgment was rendered and the time within which it might be filed was not extended by an order of court or judge as provided in rule 2, supra, cannot be considered as a statement of facts. 3. Same Record — -Time eor Filing — Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1901, No. 1582, Construed. — Under the provisions of paragraph 1582, requiring record of case to be filed in the supreme court within thirty days after the perfection of the record in the district court, a reeord filed in the supreme court after the expiration of thirty days will not be considered. APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District, in and for the County of Pima. John H. Campbell, Judge. Affirmed. Opinion on rehearing, post, p. 278. Frank H. Hereford, for Appellant. Selim M. Franklin, for Appellees. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. — In this case there is no assignment of errors. Rev. Stats. 1901, par. 1586; Gardiner v. Gardiner, 7 Ariz. 73, 60 Pac. 875; Maricopa County v. Jordan, 7 Ariz. 4, 60 Pac. 693; Utah Canal Enlargement & Extension Co. v. London Co., 7 Ariz. 1, 60 Pac. 722. There is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions, except in the form of a transcript of the reporter’s notes. This transcript has not been allowed by the trial judge, and hence cannot be considered as a bill of exceptions. It was not filed in the district court within the term at which the judgment was rendered, and time within which it might be filed was not extended by an order of the court or judge. Therefore it cannot be considered as a statement of facts. Rule 2 of this court, 8 Ariz. vi, 71 Pac. vi. Ignoring the reporter’s transcript, as not properly in the record, the record of the ease was not filed in this court until more than nine months after the record in the district court was completed and the appeal perfected, instead of within thirty days, as required by statute. Rev. Stats. 1901, par. 1582. The rules and statutes placing limitations of time within which appeals must be prosecuted are not unmeritorious technical restrictions, but have a sound basis as affording the protection due to an appellee that he be not indefinitely or unreasonably kept from the fruits of his successful litigation. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. CAMPBELL, J., not sitting.