Studebaker Corp. of America v. Woodruff

Fifth Circuit

Studebaker Corp. of America v. Woodruff

2 F.2d 1021, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1924

DocketNo. 4283

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F.2d 1021 (Studebaker Corp. of America v. Woodruff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Studebaker Corp. of America v. Woodruff, 2 F.2d 1021, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288 (5th Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the only assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in error. This, of course, involves a consideration of all the evidence. The trial was completed on July 5, 1923, and on the same day court was adjourned for the term. There was opportunity before adjournment to ask for an extension of time for the preparation of a [1022]*1022bill of exceptions, but this was not done, and it was not until January 2, 1924, that a bill of exceptions was presented to the district judge for his approval. In the absence of special or extraordinary circumstances, a bill of exceptions will not be allowed after the term at which the judgment was rendered has expired. Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 249, 23 L. Ed. 319; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 S. Ct. 582, 37 L. Ed. 438. No reason for the failure to obtain an extension of time at the term at which the casé was tried, or for the long delay in the presentation thereof afterwards, is shown, and therefore the bill of exceptions is stricken. In this condition of' the record the assignment of error falls, as it is based solely upon evidence which is not properly before us. The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case the only assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in error. This, of course, involves a consideration of all the evidence. The trial was completed on July 5, 1923, and on the same day court was adjourned for the term. There was opportunity before adjournment to ask for an extension of time for the preparation of a [1022]*1022bill of exceptions, but this was not done, and it was not until January 2, 1924, that a bill of exceptions was presented to the district judge for his approval. In the absence of special or extraordinary circumstances, a bill of exceptions will not be allowed after the term at which the judgment was rendered has expired. Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 249, 23 L. Ed. 319; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245, 13 S. Ct. 582, 37 L. Ed. 438. No reason for the failure to obtain an extension of time at the term at which the casé was tried, or for the long delay in the presentation thereof afterwards, is shown, and therefore the bill of exceptions is stricken. In this condition of' the record the assignment of error falls, as it is based solely upon evidence which is not properly before us. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F.2d 1021, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/studebaker-corp-of-america-v-woodruff-ca5-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack