Fishburn v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

137 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 8, 34 L. Ed. 585, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2064
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 3, 1890
Docket42
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 137 U.S. 60 (Fishburn v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fishburn v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co., 137 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 8, 34 L. Ed. 585, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2064 (1890).

Opinion

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 *61 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.

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

Related

Finn v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation
68 F. Supp. 423 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1946)
Murphy v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ETC.
145 F.2d 1018 (Ninth Circuit, 1944)
Flint v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
143 F.2d 923 (Second Circuit, 1944)
Coggeshall v. United States
95 F.2d 986 (Fourth Circuit, 1938)
Dimick v. Schiedt
293 U.S. 474 (Supreme Court, 1935)
Weekley v. Thomas
63 F.2d 988 (Fourth Circuit, 1933)
United States v. Mayer
235 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Martinez v. Paul Taylor Brown Co.
7 P.R. Fed. 8 (D. Puerto Rico, 1914)
Boatmen's Bank v. Trower Bros.
181 F. 804 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)
Latchtimacker v. Jacksonville Towing & Wrecking Co.
181 F. 276 (United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Florida, 1910)
Connecticut Fire Ins. v. Manning
177 F. 893 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)
Rupert v. United States
181 F. 87 (Eighth Circuit, 1910)
Duke v. St. Louis & S. F. R.
172 F. 684 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas, 1909)
Detroit United Ry. v. Nichols
165 F. 289 (Sixth Circuit, 1908)
Francisco v. Chicago & A. R.
149 F. 354 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Williamson v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins.
141 F. 54 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Sanford v. White
108 F. 928 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1901)
City of Manning v. German Ins.
107 F. 52 (Eighth Circuit, 1901)
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. White
100 F. 239 (Fifth Circuit, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 8, 34 L. Ed. 585, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishburn-v-chicago-milwaukee-st-paul-railway-co-scotus-1890.