JONES
v.
BUCKELL
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 judgment in a case arising from Civil War-era property confiscation, holding that it could not review the lower court's ruling on a motion for a new trial and that the bill of exceptions failed to present a reviewable question because it contained no evidence and did not directly address the legal issue through proper pleading. The Court established that bills of exceptions must be substantive and self-contained, with evidence either set forth or properly referenced within the exception itself.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The question argued in this case is, whether, under the act of Aug. 6, 1861, c. 60, “ to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes” (12 Stat. 819), a condemnation carried the fee of lands confiscated, or only the life-estate of the owner; but we cannot discover that such a question is fairly presented by the record for our consideration. The ruling of the court below on the motion for a new trial is not reviewable here. This is well settled. Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch, 11; Railway Company v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120.
The only questions, therefore, arising on the bill of exceptions, are those presented by the exception to the following opinion and charge of the court to the jury : —
“ The acts of 1861 and 1862, though differing in some respects, are in pari materia ; while the one treats of. property, the other of the person, both1 are on .account of the acts of the person offending. The Armstrong Foundry case shows that you cannot proceed against the offending thing without coupling with it the guilty knowledge and consent of the person, and that pardon of the offender absolved the property as well as the person. Upon review of the whole case, the court charges you that the condemnation-and sale of the lot in question, purporting to convey a fee.-simple, only conveys an estate for. the life of Charles Willey, and that theheirs of the said Charles Willey-are entitled -to; recover, the. same.”
The pleadings .nowhere show that vthe rights .of. the parties, depend on .the construction or. effect of the-act of 1861, and no part of the evidence is set out in :.the bill of exceptions.. Copies'of. deeds and a stipulation .in .respect to-.evidence' are found in. the transcript,-but they are nowhere' referred to-in the bill of exceptions,-and it is not even.stated in the:record-that they were used at the trial. - As long ago as Dunlop v. Munroe (7 Cranch, 242, 270),-it was said by this court that-each bill of-exceptions must -be cónsidered as.(presenting, a distinct and substantive case; and it is. on-the evidence stated-in itself alone that the court is to decide.” Of course, evidence may be included in a bill of exceptions by appropriate reference to other-parts-of the record, and if that had-been done here it might have been enough. But with no issue made. directly by the pleadings,-and no evidence set-forth or referred, to in the bill of exceptions showing the materiality of the charge complained, of, the case presents-to us only an abstract proposition of law which may or -may not have ¡been stated by the . .court in a way to be injurious to the plaintiffs in error. Such a proposition we are not required to consider. ,-Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elizabethport Cordage Co. v. Whitlock, 37 Fla. 190 (Fla. 1896)…preme Court of the United States by writ of error, the bill of exceptions in which asserts that he was a party to the judgment, and to the motion for new trial therein; and the judgment was affirmed, as against him, by that court. Jones vs. Buckell, 104 U S. 554. These [*224] judgments in ejectment, standing, as they do, in full force and unreversed, must be held to be an adjudication in favor of the plaintiffs therein against whatsoever title William S. Whitlock had or held, or could have set up or asserte…
-
Krauss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Mellon, 276 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1928)…he record, or even annexed to a bill of exceptions, when not attached to it by way of identifying them as intended to be part of it, can not be treated as such. Bank v. Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19, 29; Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409, 411 ; Jones v. Buckell, 104 U. S. 554; Hanna v. Maas, 122 U. S. 24. But in Leftwitch v. Lecanu, 4 Wall. 187, on page 189, Mr. Justice Miller, while exemplifying this principle, said in rejecting a bill of exceptions: “ If a paper which is to constitute a part of a bill of exceptions,…
-
New York v. Madison, 123 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1887)…e proof of the facts which make the charge erroneous must be distinctly set forth, or it must appear that evidence was given tending to prove them." See also United States v. Morgan, 11 How. 153, 158; Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409; Jones v. Buckell, 104 U.S. 554; Phœnix Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U.S. 183, 196. Upon the record, as it comes to us we find no error, and the judgment is consequently Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Ry. Co. v. Heck, 102 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1880)
- Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch 11 (U.S. 1809)
- Dunlop v. Munroe, 7 Cranch 242 (U.S. 1812)
- Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409 (U.S. 1873)