BEAVER
v.
TAYLOR ET AL.
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.
In an ejectment action to recover undivided interest in Illinois land, the defendant prevailed by establishing seven years of actual possession under claim of title and payment of taxes during that period. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff's exceptions to the trial court's jury instructions were procedurally defective because they were presented as a series of propositions (some of which were unsound), made in gross without identifying specific variances, and therefore failed to present any reviewable issue for appellate consideration.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Hunt delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was ejectment to recover an undivided' interest in certain lands situate in Cairo, 111. The defence was actual possession under claim and color of, title for seven successive years, and payment during Jiat period of all taxes legally assessed upon the premises claimed. Rev.' Stat. of 111., 1874, p. 674.
Evidence was given sustaining the defence, and a verdict bthe jury was rendered in favor of the defendants;
Before th'e case was submitted to the jury,, the plaintiff requested the court to charge, as set-forth by him, in eight several propositions. The court declined to charge as requested, but charged in its own language, and fully, upon the case as presented by'the evidence.
The plaintiff excepted to the refusal of, the court, and excepted also “ to so much of the charge of the court as' given, as was in conflict with and variant from the several propositions presented by him. . ,
It is upon this presentation of the case that this court is asked to reverse the judgment entered upon the verdict.
1. The' entire series of propositions ' was presented as one request; .and, if any one proposition was unsound,,an exception to a refusal'to charge the series cannot be maintained. 11 N. Y. 416; 6 id. 233; 7 id. 236. All of' the propositions presented were not sound; notably the fifth request could not.be complied with.
2. If the entire charge of the court is excepted to, or a series of propositions contained in it is excepted to in gross, and any portion thus excepted to is sound, the exception cannot be sustainedi Rogers v. The Marshal, 1 Wall. 644; Harvey v. Tyler, 2 id. 328; 5 Denio, 213.; Jones v. Osgood, 2 Seld. 233;. Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 N. Y. 416; Walsh v. Kelly, 40 id. 556. The,charge before us was confessedly sound'in the most of its points. 3. An exception to sucb. portions of a charge as are variant. from the requests made by a party, not pointing out .the variances, cannot be sustained. 40 N. Y. 556; 45 id. 129; 47 id. 570. It is not the duty of á judge at the circuit court, or of an appellate court, to analyze and compare the requests and the charge, to discover what are the portions thus excepted to. One object of an exception is to call the attention of the circuit judge to the precise point as to which it is supposed he has erred, that he may then and there consider it, and give new and different instructions to the jury, if ip his judgment it should be proper to áo so. Ayrault v. The Pacific Bank, 47 N. Y. 576. An-exception in the form we are considering entirely defeats that object.
For these three reasons, the bill of exceptions fails to present any point that we can consider. We are also of the opinion, upon an examination, of the record, that the case was well submitted to the jury, and that the plaintiff has no just ground of complaint.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1943)…the correct charge by specifically calling the attention of the trial court to the error and where part of the charge was correct, he may not through a general exception obtain a new trial. See Lincoln v. Claflin, 7 Wall. 132, 139; Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U. S. 46, 54-55; Mobile & Montgomery Ry. Co. v. Jurey, 111 U. S. 584, 596; McDermott v. Severe, 202 U. S. 600, 611; Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Earnest, 229 U. S. 114, 122; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Minds, 250 U. S. 368, 375. That long standing rule of federal prac…
-
United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1936)…t. This practice is founded upon considerations of fairness to the court and to the parties and of the public interest in bringing litigation to an end after fair opportunity has been afforded to present all issues of law and fact. Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U. S. 46; Allis v. United States, 155 U. S. 117, 122, 123; United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U. S. 512, 529; Guerini Stone Co. v. Carlin Construction Co., 248 U. S. 334, 348; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Minds, 250 U. S. 368, 375; Burns v…
-
United States v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 236 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1915)…, and that injustice and mistrials due to inadvertent errors may thus be obviated. An exception, therefore, furnishes no basis for reversal upon any ground other than the one specifically called to the attention of the trial court. Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U. S. 46, 55; Robinson & Co. v. Belt, 187 U. S. 41, 50; Addis v. Rushmore, 74 N. J. L. 649, 651; Holt v. United Security Life Ins. Co., 76 N. J. L. 585, 593. And the practice respecting exceptions in the Federal courts is unaffected by the Conformity Act, §…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rogers v. The Marshal, 1 Wall. 644 (U.S. 1863)