FISHBURN
v.
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY

U.S. | 1890-11-03
No. 42
137 U.S. 60 Supreme Court of the United States (1890) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 34 L. Ed. 585 · 11 S. Ct. 8 · SCDB 1890-009 · 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2064
Cited by 22 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

Fishburn brought suit against the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company for wrongfully ejecting her from one of its passenger trains, but the trial court ruled in favor of the railroad company. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that because the plaintiff failed to take proper exceptions to the trial court's rulings and charge to the jury during trial, the Court could not review those matters on appeal, as its review is limited to questions of law appearing on the face of the record.

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

Opinion of the Court
Fuller, C. J.

Fuller, C. J.

This is an action for damages brought by plaintiff in error against defendant in error for wrongfully ejecting her from one of its passenger trains, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of defendant in error. In regard to motions for new trial and bills of exceptions, courts of the United States are independent of any statute or practice prevailing in the courts of the State in which the trial is had. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 132 U. S. 191.

Mr. B. F. Dunwiddie (with whom were Mr. I. C. Sloane and Mr. B. Dunwiddie on the brief) for plaintiff in error. Mr. John W. Cary and Mr. Burton Hanson for defendant in error. The only exception in respect to which plaintiff assigns error here was to the overruling of her motion for a new trial, which is not the subject of exception, according to the practice of the courts of the United States.

Various objections to the charge of the court were set out as grounds for the motion for new trial, but it nowhere appears that exceptions were taken to any of these matters, save as involved in the overruling of that motion, nor does the record show that the action of the Circuit Court was invoked upon the ground that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict.

Our right of review is limited to questions of law appearing on the face of the record, and we find none such presented here.

The judgment must therefore be Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
    …rts 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 without power to entertain the application, the conse…
  • Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1935)
    …urt to grant or deny a new trial.1 Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213, 220; The Abbotsford, 98 U. S. 440, 445; Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, supra, 31; Terre Haute & Indiana Ry. Co. v. Struble, 109 U. S. 381, 384, 385; Fishburn v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 137 U. S. 60, 61; Ayers v. Watson, 137 U. S. 584, 597; Wilson v. Everett, supra, 621; Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, supra, 540. If the effect of what is now decided is to liberalize the traditional common law practice so that the denial of a motion fo…
  • Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1895)
    …ary notwithstanding. 17 Stat. 197; Rev. Stat. § 914. But this act does not include the manner of bringing cases from a lower court of the United States to this court. Chateaugay Co., petitioner, 128 U. S. 544; Fishburn v. Chicago &c. Railway, [*282] 137 U. S. 60. Under section 917 of the Revised Statutes, therefore, by which (reenacting to this extent the provision of the act of 1842) “the Supreme Court shall have power to prescribe, from time to time, and in any manner not inconsistent with any law of the…

Previewing 3 of 9 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