RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
TWOMBLY

U.S. | 1879-10-01
100 U.S. 78 Supreme Court of the United States (1879) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 25 L. Ed. 550 · 1879 U.S. LEXIS 1807 · SCDB 1879-015
Cited by 74 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment for the railway company in a dispute where the plaintiff sought to challenge the jury verdict as unsupported by evidence. The Court held that it lacked authority to review the trial court's decision to deny a motion for a new trial on evidentiary grounds, and that a subsequent repeal of the statute authorizing the action did not provide grounds to overturn the already-rendered judgment.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

We think that the court below was right in holding that the bill of exceptions only presented for review the refusal of. the District Court, on the motion for a new trial, to set aside the verdict because not sustained by the evidence. It is well settled that such a question cannot be re-examined here on a writ of error. Marine Insurance Co. v. Young, 5 Cranch, 187; Barr v. Gtratz's Heirs, 4 Wheat. 213; Mullhall v. Keenan, 18 Wall. 342.

Neither can we, as is asked, send the case back to the court below, with instructions to enter a judgment of nonsuit, because since the judgment below, and while this writ of error has been pending, the statute authorizing the action has been repealed. A writ of error to' this court does not vacate the judgment below. That continues in force until reversed, which is only done when errors are found in the record on which it rests, and which were committed previous to its rendition. Here there are no such errors. All we can do, therefore, is to affirm the judgment, and send'our mandate to that effect to the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (57 total)

  • Fairmount Glass Works v. CUB Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1933)
    …86 Fed. 827, 832, where the moving party was the defendant, against whom the verdict had gone. See e. g., Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch 11, 12; Marine Ins. Co. v. Young, 5 Cranch 187, 191; The “Abbotsford,” 98 U. S. 440, 445; Railway Co. v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78, 81. In numerous cases no reference is made, in denying review, to the grounds for the motion. E. g., Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213, 220; Brown v. Clarke, 4 How. 4, 15; Kerr v. Clampitt, 95 U. S. 188, 189; Ayers v. Watson, 137 U. S. 584, 597; Van Ston…
  • United Copper Sec. Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co., 244 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1917)
    …13, the same persons had been appointed ancillary receivers by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. We have no occasion to consider the power of this court to grant the motion for substitution. See Railway Co. v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78, 81. It is without merit and is denied. Judgment affirmed. The bill is framed on the theory that the injury to the United Copper Company was suffered directly, as á competitor of the other defendants, and the case will be discussed on that supposi…
  • Cameron v. United States, 231 U.S. 710 (U.S. 1914)

Previewing 3 of 57 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw