engrossed and submitted to him for signature. Haynes, New Trials & App. § 156. It further appears from some of the affidavits that the judge informed appellant's counsel that he was ready to sign the bill, as settled, any time it should be put in form and submitted to him, and that appellant's counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling of the judge as to the matters to be embodied in the bill, and intimated that he would apply to the Supreme Court to have the bill settled. If these facts are true, the trial judge did not neglect to settle the bill within the 60 days. They are, in the main, controverted. We do not believe that there is any intentional misstatement of fact on either side. We simply hold that there is a failure to make out, by a preponderance of proof, that the case falls within the exception, and the general rule regulating the time in which to appeal from an order must therefore govern. The appeal having been taken too late, the motion to dismiss is granted. All concur.
(54 N. W. Rep. 1026.)
