-
It would seem from the record that the “proposed” order of September 13,1916, would have been proper, but as the order from which the appeal is taken is not contained in the record,
*894 and, therefore, not before us, the appeal is dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Thomas, Oarr, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.
Document Info
Filed Date: 12/15/1916
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/27/2024