Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago & Alton Railroad

132 U.S. 191, 33 L. Ed. 309, 10 S. Ct. 65, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1860
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 25, 1889·No. No. 66·Published·Cited by 25 cases

Opinion

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 [192]*192trial is had. Indianapolis Railroad v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581; Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U. S. 544.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago & Alton Railroad, 132 U.S. 191, 33 L. Ed. 309, 10 S. Ct. 65, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1860 (1889).

132 U.S. 191 (Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago & Alton Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)
Ramsey v. Ross
85 F.2d 685 (D.C. Circuit, 1936)
Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co.
287 U.S. 474 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Prouty v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.
297 F. 603 (Second Circuit, 1924)
Washington Railway & Electric Co. v. Upperman
47 App. D.C. 219 (D.C. Circuit, 1918)
Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland
239 F. 1 (Third Circuit, 1917)
United States v. Mayer
235 U.S. 55 (Supreme Court, 1914)
McBride v. Neal
214 F. 968 (Seventh Circuit, 1914)
Martinez v. Paul Taylor Brown Co.
7 P.R. Fed. 8 (D. Puerto Rico, 1914)
Knight v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
180 F. 368 (Sixth Circuit, 1910)
Duke v. St. Louis & S. F. R.
172 F. 684 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas, 1909)
Murhard Estate Co. v. Portland & Seattle Ry. Co.
163 F. 194 (Ninth Circuit, 1908)
Collin County Nat. Bank v. Hughes
155 F. 389 (Eighth Circuit, 1907)
J. W. Bishop Co. v. Shelhorse
141 F. 643 (Fourth Circuit, 1905)
City of Manning v. German Ins.
107 F. 52 (Eighth Circuit, 1901)
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. White
100 F. 239 (Fifth Circuit, 1900)
Hughey v. Sullivan
80 F. 72 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1897)
Prichard v. Budd
76 F. 710 (Fourth Circuit, 1896)
Alexander v. United States
57 F. 828 (Ninth Circuit, 1893)