Steel Rail Supply Co. v. Baltimore & L. Ry. Co.

Third Circuit

Steel Rail Supply Co. v. Baltimore & L. Ry. Co.

126 F. 1023, 60 C.C.A. 691, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4385

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 126 F. 1023 (Steel Rail Supply Co. v. Baltimore & L. Ry. Co.) 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

Steel Rail Supply Co. v. Baltimore & L. Ry. Co., 126 F. 1023, 60 C.C.A. 691, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4385 (3d Cir. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Two reasons are assigned in support of this motion, namely: “First. Because the said writ of error is in effect from the judgment of this court to this court. Second. Because the learned trial judge had no authority to allow and sign the bill of exceptions (which said writ of error is to review) at the time when allowed and signed.” In the special circumstances, these reasons, we think, do not furnish good ground for the allowance of the motion to dismiss or affirm, and the same must be denied. It is, however, proper for us to add that, in denying this motion, we are not to be understood as intimating any opinion upon the question of the legal sufficiency of the exception taken by the defendant below to the charge of the court, or as to any question touching the merits of the case. Motion denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Two reasons are assigned in support of this motion, namely: “First. Because the said writ of error is in effect from the judgment of this court to this court. Second. Because the learned trial judge had no authority to allow and sign the bill of exceptions (which said writ of error is to review) at the time when allowed and signed.” In the special circumstances, these reasons, we think, do not furnish good ground for the allowance of the motion to dismiss or affirm, and the same must be denied. It is, however, proper for us to add that, in denying this motion, we are not to be understood as intimating any opinion upon the question of the legal sufficiency of the exception taken by the defendant below to the charge of the court, or as to any question touching the merits of the case. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 F. 1023, 60 C.C.A. 691, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steel-rail-supply-co-v-baltimore-l-ry-co-ca3-1903.