UNITED STATES
v.
CAREY & ANOTHER; UNITED STATES V. CAREY

U.S. | 1884-01-07
110 U.S. 51 Supreme Court of the United States (1884) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 28 L. Ed. 67 · 3 S. Ct. 424 · 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1653 · SCDB 1883-100
Cited by 15 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 defendants were convicted after trial in 1880, but did not file a bill of exceptions objecting to the trial court's evidentiary ruling until the following term, after judgment had been rendered. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that exceptions to trial rulings must be taken at the time of trial itself, and while the formal bill of exceptions may be signed later, the record must affirmatively show that the exception was seasonably taken during trial, not merely tendered for signature at a subsequent term.

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

Opinion of the Court
Me. Chief Justioe Waite

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

The judgment in each of these cases was rendered after a trial by jury on-the 17th of March, 1880, during the November term, 1879, although it was not signed until May 20th, 1880. On the 19th of May, 1880, which was at the April term of that year, the district judge who presided at the trial signed a bill of exceptions, which sets forth that on the trial the United States offered in evidence a document which was annexed and purported to be a copy of an assessment made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for May, 1875, to the introduction of which the defendants objected, and that, the objection was sustained. The bill of exceptions then proceeds as follows:

“ To which ruling of the court plaintiff excepts, and tenders this his bill of exceptions, which is accordingly signed this 19th day of May, 1880.” The rule is well established and of long standing that an exception to be of any avail must be taken at the trial'. It may be reduced to form and signed afterwards, but the fact that it was seasonably taken must appear affirmatively in the record . by. a bill of exceptions duly allowed or otherwise. Phelps v. Mayer, 15 How. 160; United States v. Breitling, 20 How. 252; French v. Edwards, 13 Wall. 506 ; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548; Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. S.

333. This clearly is . not such a cáse. There is nothing whatever to indicate that any exception was taken to the rejection of the evidence complained of until the next term after the trial was over and the judgment rendered, though not signed. Even the liberal extension of the rule granted in Simpson v. Dall, 3 Wall. 460, is not enough to reach this.defect. The language here implies an exception only at the time of tendering the bill of exceptions to be signed,' which was not only long after the trial, but at a subsequent term, of the court.

,. It follows-that the errors assigned are not such as we can consider, and

The judgments are affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80 (4th Cir. 1941)
    …nt was guilty of crimes other than that for which he was on trial. It is a sufficient answer to this that no such objection was interposed at the time. Matheson v. United States, 227 U.S. 540, 545, 33 S.Ct. 355, 57 L.Ed. 631; United States v. Carey, 110 U.S. 51, 3 S.Ct. 424, 28 L.Ed. 67; Breedin v. United States, 4 Cir., 73 F. 2d 778, 780. As was said in the last case cited: “We exercise the power to notice plain error not assigned only where necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and a careful exa…
  • Breedin v. United States, 73 F.2d 778 (4th Cir. 1934)
    …. Ed. 996. The remaining assignments of error are not based upon exceptions properly taken during the progress of the trial, and consequently cannot be considered. Matheson v. U. S., 227 U. S. 540, 543, 33 S. Ct. 355, 57 L. Ed. 631; U. S. v. Carey, 110 U. S. 51, 3 S. Ct. 424, 28 L. Ed. 67. We exercise the power to notice plain error not assigned only where necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and a careful examination of the record convinces us that there is no occasion to exercise it here. Upon…
  • The Maggie J. Smith. Walker v. DUN, 123 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1887)

Previewing 3 of 8 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