Effect of. The bill when sealed is con clusive evidence as to the facts therein stat ed as between the parties; 3 Burr. 1765; Bingham v. Cabbot, 3 Dall. (U. S.) 38, 1 L. Ed. 491; Law v. Merrills, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 276; in the suit to which it relates, but no further ; Shotwell v. Hamblin, 23 Miss. 156, 55 Am. Dec. 83; see Baylor v. Smithers, 1 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 6 ; and all objections not appearing by the bill are excluded ; 8 East 280 ; Baring v. Shippen, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 168 ; Allen v. Smith, 12 N. J. L. 160; Com. v. Stephens, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 370; Dean v. Gridley, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 254; Newsum v. Newsum, 1 Leigh (Va.) 86, 19 Am. Dec. 739'; Picket v. Allen, 10 Conn. 146 ; Drexel v. Man, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 343; Bone v. Mc Ginley, 7 How. (Miss.) 671; Brown v. Brown, 7 Mo. 288; Stimpson v. R. Co., 3 How. (U. S.) 553, 11 L. Ed. 722; Lewis v. Lewis, 75 Ia. 669, 37 N. W. 166. But see Murdock v. Herndon's Ex'rs, 4 Hen. & M. (Va.) 200. In the absence of a bill 'of exceptions point ing out the alleged errors the appellate court will not review the instructions unless funda mentally erroneous; Howard v. State, 25 Tex. App. 602, 8 S. W. 806. An exception to con clusions of law admits the findings of fact ; Neisler v. Harris, 115 Ind. 560, 18 N. E. 39.
It draws in question only the points to which the exception is taken ; Van Gordon v. Jackson, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 467; Coxe v. Field, 13 N. J. L. 216; Watson v. Watson, 10 Cann. 75; Picket v. Allen, id. 146; and an exception to an instruction will not be con sidered when the bill of exceptions does not show what the evidence tended to prove; Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. S. 183, 7 Sup. Ct. 500, 30 L. Ed. 644. It does not of itself operate as a stay of proceedings; Seymour v. Slocum, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 509; Holcombe v. Roberts, 19 Ga. 588. The practice of making the entire charge to the jury a part of the bill of ex ceptions is strongly disapproved; Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U. S. 183, 7 Sup. Ct. 500, 30 L. Ed. 644.
A stipulation, if it can be understood, may answer in place of a bill of exceptions; Houl ehan v. Rassler, 73 Wis. 557, 41 N. W. 720.
If the judge's rulings and the grounds of objection thereto appear of record, the right of the party excepting is fully preserved without the retention of a bill; State v. Judge Twenty-Third District Court, 40 La. Ann. 809, 5 South. 467. If the judge has certified and filed the record containing the evidence, exceptions, and charge, he is not compelled to sign a second or separate bill for the party excepting ; Cora. v. Arnold, 161 Pa. 320, 29 Atl. 270. Where the error is ap parent upon the record it need not be pre sented by a bill of particulars ; Moline Plow Co. v. Webb, 141 U. S. 616,1.2 Sup. Ct. 100, 35 L. Ed. 879.
They have been abolished in English practice. A curious case in McDonald v. Faulkner, 2 Ark. 472, shows what is probably the only instance of the kind,—a bill of exceptions certified by bystanders. The verdict and judgment was entered for the plaintiff September 10, 1893 ; September 12 the de fendant moved for a new trial, and on the 16th the motion was overruled and the defendant accepted and obtained leave to prepare a bill of exceptions. Under date of the 21st, the record states: "The de fendant filed his bill of exceptions, whereupon the plaintiff filed his bill of exceptions certified by the bystanders." To the latter the judge appended a statement that he declined signing it, "not that it does 'not oontain the facts of the• case, but be cause it purports to be an exception to the opinion of the court in signihg a bill of exceptions taken to a former decision of the court in signing a bill of exceptions in the progress of the cause." There upon the plaintiff's hill of exceptions was signed and certified to be true by five bystanders. The judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered, but no mention is made of plaintiff's bill of excep tions on petition for rehearing. In an opinion de nying it, the judge refers to. the "plaintiff's bill of exceptions taken and signed by bystanders on the 25th of September," holds him estopped by the statements in it from denying the accuracy of de fendant's bill of exceptions.