1. Appeal — Time op Taking — Entry of Judgment.

The jury having returned a verdict, for defendant by direction of the court, the plaintiffs procured Ibc judge to sign a bill of exceptions, which, after reciting the fact, concluded, “Pora «much as the facts aforesaid, and the decision of the court thereon, do not appear of record, plaintiff’s pray that this, their bill of exceptions, may be allowed,” etc. A formal judgment was entered on the verdict some months later, and a writ of error was sued out within six mouths thereafter; but defendant moved to dismiss the same in the appellate court on the ground that the words above quoted either implied that a judgment was at that time rendered, or that the words themselves constituted an entry of judgment. Held, that this contention was unfounded, and that the writ of error was sued out in time.

2. Railroad Construction Contract — Extra Work — Award of Engineer— Rad Eaitii.

Plaintiffs hnilt for defendant company a certain line of railroad, under a, contract that no extra labor-or material was to be paid for, unless ordered by the company’s engineer, who was constituted umpire to finally decide all questions which might arise. The contract reserved to the company the right to change the line and grade without affecting the price, but provided that the engineer was to fix the amount to be paid for any change materially affecting the cost, so as to do substantial justice. During the progress of the work, changes which did materially affect cost were made, which plaintiffs requested the engineer to estimate, but he did not until after plaintiffs had been paid the price of the original contract. Subsequently the umpire awarded $3,765.60 for extra work, but made a iinding that the work liad been delayed, to the company’s damage of an equal sum, and that the one should offset the other. He refused to take any further action, or to hear the plaintiffs in regard to the reasons for delay, which they alleged were caused by the company, without their fault. Held, that the circumstances were such clear evidence of bad faith as to render the award void.