Curry v. Porter
Decision Date | 24 July 1878 |
Citation | 125 Mass. 94 |
Parties | Daniel Curry v. Edward F. Porter |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Contract upon a check. Trial in the Superior Court before Aldrich, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, which after stating the evidence in the case and setting forth the entire charge to the jury, concluded as follows "Plaintiff's counsel excepted to the charge, and prays that his exceptions may be allowed."
Exceptions overruled.
W. Gaston & C. E. Hubbard, (I. W. Richardson with them,) for the plaintiff.
E. D. Sohier & L. W. Howes, for the defendant.
This case presents an important question of practice. The only exception taken at the trial was an exception to the charge of the presiding justice, which is set out in full in the bill of exceptions. The plaintiff made no requests for instructions, and did not allege exceptions to any specified rulings or directions of the court upon matters of law, but, at the close of the trial, simply "excepted to the charge."
The statute provides that, in all cases, "a party aggrieved by an opinion, ruling, direction or judgment of the court in matters of law, may allege exceptions thereto." Gen. Sts. c. 115, § 7. This provision imports, and such has been its uniform practical construction, that it is the duty of a party to allege his exception specifically to any ruling or direction in matters of law by which he feels aggrieved, so as to call the attention of the court and of the adverse party to the point excepted to. To allege an exception to the whole charge is an abuse and evasion of the statute, and leads to great inconvenience and danger of injustice. The true rule cannot be better stated than in the words of Mr. Justice Story, in Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. 1, 81, and adopted by Chief Justice Marshall, in Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190, 198:
There are several cases in this court in which the whole charge has been set out in the bill of exceptions; but this course has been uniformly condemned....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People of Territory of Utah v. Hart
...v. Sherin (S. D.), 4 S.D. 88, 55 N.W. 723; Decker v. Mathews, 12 N.Y. 313; Pinson v. State (Fla.), 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706; Curry v. Porter, 125 Mass. 94; Brooks v. Dutcher, 24 Neb. 300, 38 N.W. 780; Edwards v. Smith, 16 Colo. 529, 27 P. 809; Maling v. Crummey, 5 Wash. 222, 31 P. 600; Thomps......
-
Snow v. Alley
...the court did not call for more definite exceptions is immaterial, because it is the right of the adverse party to have them. Curry v. Porter, 125 Mass. 94. DEVENS, J. This is an action of tort to recover in trover from the defendant the value of 150 Postal Telegraph bonds, of the par value......
-
People of Territory of Utah v. Berlin
...v. Sherin (S. D.), 4 S.D. 88, 55 N.W. 723; Decker v. Mathews, 12 N.Y. 313; Pinson v. State (Fla.), 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706; Curry v. Porter, 125 Mass. 94; Brooks v. Dutcher, 24 Neb. 300, 38 780; Edwards v. Smith, 16 Colo. 529, 27 P. 809; Maling v. Crummey, 5 Wash. 222, 31 P. 600; Thompson v.......
-
Shelp v. United States
... ... 227; ... People v. Hart (Utah) 37 P. 330; Woods v ... Berry, 7 Mont. 196, 204, 14 P. 658; State v. Mason ... (Mont.) 45 P. 557; Curry v. Porter, 125 Mass ... 94; Yates v. Bachley, 33 Wis. 185, Hopkins ... Manuf'g Co. v. Aurora F. & M. Ins. Co., 48 Mich ... 148, 11 N.W. 846; ... ...