
    (Eighth Circuit — Cuyahoga Co., O., Cir’t Court,
    Jan. Term, 1900.)
    Before Caldwell, Marvin and Hale, JJ.
    BRIGGS v. ROWLEY.
    
    Bill of exceptions should show that it was presented to opposite oounsel within forty days.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga county.
    
      O. L. Shaw, for Plaintiff in Error.
    
      Johnson & Hachney, for Defendant in Error.
    
      
      But see as to this question the decision of the supreme court in Felch, Assignee, v. Hodgman, 43 W. L. B., *332; 62 Ohio St., -.
    
   CALDWELL, J.

This case comes here on motion to strike off the bill of exceptions. The transcript does not show in this case that the bill of exceptions was ever submitted to opposite counsel; that is the ground on which it is asked to be stricken off.

We think it is the intent and purpose of the supreme court, if it has not so held already, to hold that the judge has- no authority to accept the bill of exceptions and to sign it until submitted to the opposite counsel, and that that must b# hown by the record.

Believing that we follow that court, we sustain this motion, and the bill is stricken off.  