MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY

U.S. | 1889-11-25
No. 66
132 U.S. 191 Supreme Court of the United States (1889) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 33 L. Ed. 309 · 10 S. Ct. 65 · SCDB 1889-027 · 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1860
Cited by 53 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr.. Justice Gray

Mr.. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court.

In this action, tried by the Circuit Court without a jury, there is' no case stated by the parties, or finding of facts by the court. The bill of exceptions, after setting forth all the evidence introduced at the trial, states that “there were no declarations of law asked for, or given by the court;” and the single exception taken is to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, which is a matter of discretion, and not a subject of exception, according to the practice of the courts of the United States. In regard to motions for a new trial, and bills of exceptions, those courts are independent of any statute or practice prevailing in the courts of the State in which the trial is had. Indianapolis Railroad v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581; Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U. S. 544.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

  • Fairmount Glass Works v. CUB Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1933)
    …icago 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 writ of error and motion for a new trial were mutually exclusive remedies. See 1 Holdsworth, History of English…
  • United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
    …n neither be conferred upon nor withheld from the courts of the United States by the statutes of a State or the practice of its courts.” See, also, Ind. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 [*70] U. S. 291, 301; Mo. Pac. Rwy. Co. v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 132 U. S. 191; Fishburn v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 60; Fuller v. United States, 182 U. S. 562, 575; United States v. 1621 Pounds of Fur Clippings, 106 Fed. Rep. 161; City of Manning v. German Ins. Co., 107 Fed. Rep. 52. 2. As the District Court was w…
  • White v. United States, 48 F.2d 178 (10th Cir. 1931)
    …, as distinguished from the evidentiary facts. Wilson v. Merchants’ Co., supra; United States Trust Co. v. New Mexico, supra; Kentucky L. & A. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton (C. C. A.) 63 F. 93; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U., S. 192, 194, 10 S. Ct. 57, 33 L. Ed. 309; Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U. S. 468, 472, 16 S. Ct. 1064, 41 L. Ed. 230; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards (C. C. A. 8) 167 F. 126; United States v. Smith (C. C. A. 1) 39 F.(2d) 851, 854. An exception is not a prerequisite to a review of the ques…

Previewing 3 of 21 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