Fernwood & G. R. v. Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co.

Fifth Circuit

Fernwood & G. R. v. Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co.

213 F. 33, 129 C.C.A. 627, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1847

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1914

DocketNo. 2596

StatusPublished

This text of 213 F. 33 (Fernwood & G. R. v. Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land 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

Fernwood & G. R. v. Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Co., 213 F. 33, 129 C.C.A. 627, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1847 (5th Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the rulings of the court on the admission of evidence in the course of the trial, nor any reversible error in the refusal to give the special instructions to the jury requested by the defendant below.

This disposes of all the assignments of error except the fourth, which is, “The court erred in permitting proof of the expenses of the plaintiff in looking after the matters in controversy,” as to which we find that the expenses of the plaintiff in looking after the matters in controversy were expressly included in the plaintiff’s demand set forth in his declaration, that the evidence in relation thereto was admitted without objection, and that there was no special instruction asked in regard thereto; therefore the fourth assignment of error is not well taken.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the rulings of the court on the admission of evidence in the course of the trial, nor any reversible error in the refusal to give the special instructions to the jury requested by the defendant below.

This disposes of all the assignments of error except the fourth, which is, “The court erred in permitting proof of the expenses of the plaintiff in looking after the matters in controversy,” as to which we find that the expenses of the plaintiff in looking after the matters in controversy were expressly included in the plaintiff’s demand set forth in his declaration, that the evidence in relation thereto was admitted without objection, and that there was no special instruction asked in regard thereto; therefore the fourth assignment of error is not well taken.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F. 33, 129 C.C.A. 627, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fernwood-g-r-v-bessemer-coal-iron-land-co-ca5-1914.