Brown v. Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co.

Fifth Circuit

Brown v. Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co.

221 F. 261, 137 C.C.A. 206, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1330

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1915

DocketNo. 2624

StatusPublished

This text of 221 F. 261 (Brown v. Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Cumberland Telegraph & Telephone Co., 221 F. 261, 137 C.C.A. 206, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1330 (5th Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to recover damages growing out of a fire. On the trial, after hearing the evidence, the court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff sued out this writ of error, assigning as error the direction of the verdict for the defendant.

The bill of exceptions taken in the case, without reciting the evidence, purports “to attach and make a part of the record all testimony, documents, evidence, etc., of all kinds.” In the transcript we find, under the head of “Testimony Taken in the Case,” what seems to be the examination of ten or more witnesses; but it is not identified in any manner by either stenographer, clerk, or judge. This renders the hill worthless and ineffective (see Weaver v. Schumpert, 168 Fed. 43, 93 C. C. A. 465); but, as the plaintiff in error makes no point upon the same, we have read and considered the transcribed evidence as though the bill of exceptions was sufficient.

[262]*262•From a careful consideration of the whole, we are forced to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence in the case which would have warranted the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff, and that therefore the instruction to find a verdict for the defendant was correct.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit to recover damages growing out of a fire. On the trial, after hearing the evidence, the court directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff sued out this writ of error, assigning as error the direction of the verdict for the defendant.

The bill of exceptions taken in the case, without reciting the evidence, purports “to attach and make a part of the record all testimony, documents, evidence, etc., of all kinds.” In the transcript we find, under the head of “Testimony Taken in the Case,” what seems to be the examination of ten or more witnesses; but it is not identified in any manner by either stenographer, clerk, or judge. This renders the hill worthless and ineffective (see Weaver v. Schumpert, 168 Fed. 43, 93 C. C. A. 465); but, as the plaintiff in error makes no point upon the same, we have read and considered the transcribed evidence as though the bill of exceptions was sufficient.

[262]*262•From a careful consideration of the whole, we are forced to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence in the case which would have warranted the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff, and that therefore the instruction to find a verdict for the defendant was correct.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 F. 261, 137 C.C.A. 206, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-cumberland-telegraph-telephone-co-ca5-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack