consideration requirement in Wyoming

2018Id . at 118, 85 S.Ct. 234 . [¶33] Here, Father sought psychological examinations of himself, Mother, and the children because Mother placed the children's psychological well-being at issue in the petition to modify the custody order.

1990They do not match the criteria that we discussed in Schmunk v. State, 714 P.2d 724 (Wyo.1986), or in Browder v. State, 639 P.2d 889 (Wyo.1982), as justifying a consideration of the claim of error under the plain error doctrine.

1990They do not match the criteria that we discussed in Schmunk v. State, 714 P.2d 724 (Wyo.1986), or in Browder v. State, 639 P.2d 889 (Wyo.1982), as justifying a consideration of the claim of error under the plain error doctrine.

1985In Kay v. Spencer, 29 Wyo. 382 , 213 P. 571, 574 , 27 A.L.R. 1122 (1923), we stated that: “The acknowledgment of the receipt of $1, a mere statement of fact, known by both parties to be untrue, gained no sanctity by reason of being stated in writing, and could be disproved.” Appellant contends, further, that the consideration requirement is satisfied by inclusion in this guaranty of the words “other valuable consideration.” There is no evidence, however, that any valuable consideration was received by appellee either by way of benefit or detriment.

1985In Kay v. Spencer, 29 Wyo. 382 , 213 P. 571, 574 , 27 A.L.R. 1122 (1923), we stated that: “The acknowledgment of the receipt of $1, a mere statement of fact, known by both parties to be untrue, gained no sanctity by reason of being stated in writing, and could be disproved.” Appellant contends, further, that the consideration requirement is satisfied by inclusion in this guaranty of the words “other valuable consideration.” There is no evidence, however, that any valuable consideration was received by appellee either by way of benefit or detriment.

1925A bill of exceptions, as usually defined, and as defined by this court, is not merely a statement of “exceptions,” but it includes a statement clearly showing “the objection, with the facts and circumstances upon which it is founded, which, to attest its accuracy, is authenticated by the trial judge according to law. ’ ’ Freeburgh v. Lamour *110 eux, 12 Wyo. 41 , 73 Pac. 545 .

1925A bill of exceptions, as usually defined, and as defined by this court, is not merely a statement of “exceptions,” but it includes a statement clearly showing “the objection, with the facts and circumstances upon which it is founded, which, to attest its accuracy, is authenticated by the trial judge according to law. ’ ’ Freeburgh v. Lamour *110 eux, 12 Wyo. 41 , 73 Pac. 545 .

1922A. 359 ; Bateson v. Clark, 37 Mo. 31 ; Greenwell v. Hess, (Ill.) 131 N. E. 626 .) The early territorial decisions having been followed by a court rule requiring a bill to show the motion- for a new trial, the ruling thereon and exception thereto, as well as the making of the motion in the court below as a condition-precedent to the consideration on error of any matter which" might properly be included in such a motion, the validity of the rule was assailed in two cases, (Johns v. Adams Bros., 2 Wyo. 164 , and U. S. v. Trabing, 3 Wyo. 144 , 6 Pac. 721 .) And in botb cases the validity of the ru

1922A. 359 ; Bateson v. Clark, 37 Mo. 31 ; Greenwell v. Hess, (Ill.) 131 N. E. 626 .) The early territorial decisions having been followed by a court rule requiring a bill to show the motion- for a new trial, the ruling thereon and exception thereto, as well as the making of the motion in the court below as a condition-precedent to the consideration on error of any matter which" might properly be included in such a motion, the validity of the rule was assailed in two cases, (Johns v. Adams Bros., 2 Wyo. 164 , and U. S. v. Trabing, 3 Wyo. 144 , 6 Pac. 721 .) And in botb cases the validity of the ru

1922A. 359 ; Bateson v. Clark, 37 Mo. 31 ; Greenwell v. Hess, (Ill.) 131 N. E. 626 .) The early territorial decisions having been followed by a court rule requiring a bill to show the motion- for a new trial, the ruling thereon and exception thereto, as well as the making of the motion in the court below as a condition-precedent to the consideration on error of any matter which" might properly be included in such a motion, the validity of the rule was assailed in two cases, (Johns v. Adams Bros., 2 Wyo. 164 , and U. S. v. Trabing, 3 Wyo. 144 , 6 Pac. 721 .) And in botb cases the validity of the ru

1912The case of Bruner v. Madison Co., 111 Ill. 11 , involved-the consideration of a claim of a supervisor for his services as ex-officio overseer of the poor- in his township.