Schneider v. Kessler

Third Circuit

Schneider v. Kessler

89 F.2d 1001, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3658

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 1937

DocketNo. 6261

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 F.2d 1001 (Schneider v. Kessler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schneider v. Kessler, 89 F.2d 1001, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3658 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BIGGS, Circuit Judge.

In this case one exception was taken by the appellants at the trial. This exception was based upon the refusal of the trial court to dismiss the cause at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony upon his case in chief, it being the contention of the appellants that the plaintiff had made no case. No bill of exceptions has been settled or signed by the trial judge and none is part of the record before us. We must therefore refrain from expressing any opinion as to the merits of the controversy involved. The ruling of the federal courts in this respect has been well settled, as follows: “In the federal courts in actions at law a bill of exceptions, stating the ruling and the exception, settled and signed by the trial judge, is indispensable to the review of rulings on motions, oral or written, to strike out pleadings, as well as rulings on motions based on the evidence, or requests for instructions.” Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. Le Valley (C.C.A.8) 233 F. 384; Pomeroy’s Lessee v. State Bank of Indiana, 1 Wall. 592-599,17 L.Ed. 638; Young v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354-356, 19 L.Ed. 418; Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U.S. 293, 298, 299, 12 S.Ct. 450, 36 L.Ed. 162; Rodriguez v. United States, 198 U.S. 156-165, 25 S.Ct. 617, 49 L.Ed. 994; Ghost v. United States (C.C. A.8) 168 F. 841; Ana Maria Sugar Co. v. Quinones (C.C.A.1) 251 F. 499-504; Franklin County v. Furry (C.C.A.7) 144 F. 663, 664; Adams v. Shirk (C.C.A.7) 121 F. 823; Western Dredging & Improvement Co. v. Heldmaier (C.C.A.7) 116 F. 179-184.

. There is/ therefore, no error of which we can take cognizance and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

BIGGS, Circuit Judge.

In this case one exception was taken by the appellants at the trial. This exception was based upon the refusal of the trial court to dismiss the cause at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony upon his case in chief, it being the contention of the appellants that the plaintiff had made no case. No bill of exceptions has been settled or signed by the trial judge and none is part of the record before us. We must therefore refrain from expressing any opinion as to the merits of the controversy involved. The ruling of the federal courts in this respect has been well settled, as follows: “In the federal courts in actions at law a bill of exceptions, stating the ruling and the exception, settled and signed by the trial judge, is indispensable to the review of rulings on motions, oral or written, to strike out pleadings, as well as rulings on motions based on the evidence, or requests for instructions.” Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. Le Valley (C.C.A.8) 233 F. 384; Pomeroy’s Lessee v. State Bank of Indiana, 1 Wall. 592-599,17 L.Ed. 638; Young v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354-356, 19 L.Ed. 418; Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U.S. 293, 298, 299, 12 S.Ct. 450, 36 L.Ed. 162; Rodriguez v. United States, 198 U.S. 156-165, 25 S.Ct. 617, 49 L.Ed. 994; Ghost v. United States (C.C. A.8) 168 F. 841; Ana Maria Sugar Co. v. Quinones (C.C.A.1) 251 F. 499-504; Franklin County v. Furry (C.C.A.7) 144 F. 663, 664; Adams v. Shirk (C.C.A.7) 121 F. 823; Western Dredging & Improvement Co. v. Heldmaier (C.C.A.7) 116 F. 179-184.

. There is/ therefore, no error of which we can take cognizance and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 F.2d 1001, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneider-v-kessler-ca3-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack