RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
HECK
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed a trial court judgment, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review alleged errors in the trial court's jury charge because no exceptions were taken during trial and the motion for a new trial was filed nearly three weeks after the verdict. The Court established that appellate review of trial court rulings is limited to exceptions actually taken at trial, and that a trial court's discretionary decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial cannot be assigned as error on appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr.-Chief. Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
It' does' not appear from this record that any exceptions were taken in the progress of the trial to what Was done by the court below. • Nearly three weeks after the "trial was concluded and a verdict "rendered, a motion was made-for a new trial, because of certain alleged errors in the charge; but it is nowhere s.hown that they were noted or brought to the attention of .the-.court before the verdict. Certainly no exceptions were taken. A trial court may, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, grant a new trial, if. convinced that its charge was wrong, even though its attention was not called to the error' complained of before the case was finally submitted to the jury. But not so with. us. . Our power is confined to exception's actually taken at the trial. The theory of a bill of exceptions is that it states what occurred while the trial was going on. Time is usually given tp put what was done, into an appropriate form for the. record;- but, unless objection was!made and exception taken before the verdict, no case is presented for a review here of. the rulings at the trial. This' has been settled in this court since Walton v. United States, 9 Wheat. 651. The cases are numerous to that effect.
We have uniformly held that, as' a motion for new trial in the courts of the United States is addressed to the. discretion of the court that tried the cause, the action of that court in granting or refusing to grant such a motion cannot be assigned for error here. Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. 359; Insurance Company v. Barton, 13 id. 603.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1897)…ut that the parties excepted at the time to the action of the court thereon.” Hutchins v. King, 1 Wall. 53, 60; United States v. McMasters, 4 Wall. 680, 682. “Our power is confined to exceptions actually taken at the trial.” Railway Company v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120. See also Moore v. Bank of Metropolis, 13 Pet. 302; Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. 515; Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert, 4 How. 289, 297; Phelps v. Mayer, 15 How. 160; Dredge v. Forsyth, 2 Black, 563; Young v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 27…
-
Fairmount Glass Works v. CUB Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1933)…Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160, 176; Sparrow v. Strong, 3 Wall. 97, 105; Ewing v. Howard, 7 Wall. 499, 502; Chicago v. Greer, 9 Wall. 726, 735; Insurance Co. v. Barton, 13 Wall. 603, 604; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581, 583-584; Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120; Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586, 595; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago & Alton R. Co., 132 U. S. 191; Fitzgerald Constr. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 113; Holmgren v. United States, 217 U. S. 509, 521. At early common law in England w…
-
Phillips & Another v. Negley, 117 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1886)
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. 359 (U.S. 1863)
- Walton v. The United States, 9 Wheat. 651 (U.S. 1824)