St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Rose

Sixth Circuit

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Rose

159 F. 129, 86 C.C.A. 144, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4054

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 29, 1908

DocketNo. 1,748

StatusPublished

This text of 159 F. 129 (St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Rose, 159 F. 129, 86 C.C.A. 144, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4054 (6th Cir. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The observations of the for the to the jury, made the subject of exception below and assigned as error here, were reprehensible, and the trial judge should have sustained the objection made at the time. Eater the plaintiff’s counsel withdrew the objectionable argument, and the court instructed the jury that they must ignore the argument. This cured the matter. Dunlop v. U. S., 165 U. S. 487, 17 Sup. Ct. 375, 41 L. Ed. 799.

The other errors assigned are overruled, and the judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The observations of the for the to the jury, made the subject of exception below and assigned as error here, were reprehensible, and the trial judge should have sustained the objection made at the time. Eater the plaintiff’s counsel withdrew the objectionable argument, and the court instructed the jury that they must ignore the argument. This cured the matter. Dunlop v. U. S., 165 U. S. 487, 17 Sup. Ct. 375, 41 L. Ed. 799.

The other errors assigned are overruled, and the judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 F. 129, 86 C.C.A. 144, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-s-f-r-co-v-rose-ca6-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack