Terre Haute & I. R. v. Mansberger

Seventh Circuit

Terre Haute & I. R. v. Mansberger

67 F. 67, 14 C.C.A. 306, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2722

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 1895

DocketNo. 178

StatusPublished

This text of 67 F. 67 (Terre Haute & I. R. v. Mansberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Terre Haute & I. R. v. Mansberger, 67 F. 67, 14 C.C.A. 306, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2722 (7th Cir. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

BAKER, District Judge.

Notwithstanding the statement referred to by counsel for the plaintiff in error, found on page 60 of the record, it would seem from what is disclosed on page 59 of the record that all of the printéd rules of the time card were in evidence before the jury. These rules had been exhibited to the defendant in error while testifying as a witness in his own behalf, and were identified by him. Thereupon, the attorney of the defendant in error offered two of them in evidence. Counsel for plaintiff in error then said, “If they offer the rules, we will offer them.” The court said, “They can be considered in evidence.” But, if we are mistaken in the conclusion that the record did not contain all the evidence, it was an immaterial error, because we examined the evidence with care, and reached the conclusion that it was sufficient to carry the question of negligence to the jury. We still adhere to that opinion. Hence, no error was committed in refusing to give a binding instruction.

The other questions presented in the petition of the plaintiff in error were considered and decided adversely to its contention. Having considered—and, as we still think, correctly decided—all the questions presented by the record, no good purpose would be subserved by a further discussion of them. Petition for a rehearing overruled.

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

BAKER, District Judge.

Notwithstanding the statement referred to by counsel for the plaintiff in error, found on page 60 of the record, it would seem from what is disclosed on page 59 of the record that all of the printéd rules of the time card were in evidence before the jury. These rules had been exhibited to the defendant in error while testifying as a witness in his own behalf, and were identified by him. Thereupon, the attorney of the defendant in error offered two of them in evidence. Counsel for plaintiff in error then said, “If they offer the rules, we will offer them.” The court said, “They can be considered in evidence.” But, if we are mistaken in the conclusion that the record did not contain all the evidence, it was an immaterial error, because we examined the evidence with care, and reached the conclusion that it was sufficient to carry the question of negligence to the jury. We still adhere to that opinion. Hence, no error was committed in refusing to give a binding instruction.

The other questions presented in the petition of the plaintiff in error were considered and decided adversely to its contention. Having considered—and, as we still think, correctly decided—all the questions presented by the record, no good purpose would be subserved by a further discussion of them. Petition for a rehearing overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 F. 67, 14 C.C.A. 306, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terre-haute-i-r-v-mansberger-ca7-1895.