Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago & Alton Railroad

Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi. & Alton R.R., 132 U.S. 191 (1889)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1889-11-25
Topic
general

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 *192trial is had.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago & Alton Railroad. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
25 opinions
MISS. PAC. R'Y v. CH. AND ALT. R'D.,132 U.S. 191(1889)
10 S.Ct. 65
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANYv. CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI.
No. 66.
Submitted November 5, 1889.
Decided November 25, 1889.
In regard to motions for a new trial, and bills of exceptions, the 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.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. John F. Dillonfor plaintiff in error.Mr. Alexander MartinandMr. Robert H. Kernfor defendant in error.
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 thePage 192trial is had.Indianapolis Railroadv.Horst,93 U.S. 291;Newcombv.Wood,97 U.S. 581;Chateaugay Iron Co.,Petitioner,128 U.S. 544.Judgment affirmed.