Flahrity v. Union Pac Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 July 1893 |
| Docket Number | 243. |
| Citation | 56 F. 908 |
| Parties | FLAHRITY v. UNION PAC. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Affirmed.
FEDERAL COURTS--CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS--ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS--TIME OF FILING.
In pursuance of rule 11 of the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, requiring an assignment of errors to be filed with the petition for the writ of error or appeal, and declaring that errors not assigned according to this rule will be disregarded, that court will not review a judgment when the assignment of errors has not been filed until after the writ of error was allowed, nor until more than six months after the judgment was rendered. U.S. v. Goodrich, 54 F. 21, followed.
Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge:
David Flahrity, the plaintiff in error, brought an action against the Union Pacific Railway Company, the defendant in error, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. A trial was had, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. To reverse this judgment the plaintiff sued out this writ of error. The judgment was rendered July 21, 1892. The writ of error was issued and filed December 6, 1892. The assignment of errors was filed January 24, 1893. No assignment of errors was filed before that date.
A. B. McKinley, (Hugh Butler, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
Willard Teller, (H. M. Orahood, E. B. Morgan, and J. M. Thurston, on the brief,) for defendant in error.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and SHIRAS and THAYER, District Judges.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts.)
The assignment of errors in this case was not filed until after the writ of error was allowed, nor until after six months from the rendition of the judgment. Consequently, there are no errors for this court to consider, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs, under the authority of U.S. v. Goodrich, 54 F. 21.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. Burnette
... ... after the appeal was taken. And they cite U.S. v ... Goodrich, 54 F. 21, 4 C.C.A. 160, and Flahrity v ... Union Pac. Ry. Co., 56 F. 908, 6 C.C.A. 167. But these ... objections do not assail the jurisdiction of the Court of ... Appeals of the ... ...
-
Simpson v. First Nat. Bank
... ... Frame v. Portland Gold ... Min. Co., 108 F. 750, 47 C.C.A. 664; U.S. v ... Goodrich, 54 F. 21, 22, 4 C.C.A. 160; Union Pac. R ... Co. v. Colorado Eastern R. Co., 54 F. 22, 4 C.C.A. 161; ... City of Lincoln v. Sun Vapor Street Light Co., 59 F ... 756, 759, 8 C.A. 253, 256; Flahrity v. Railroad ... Co., 56 F. 908, 6 C.C.A. 167; Crabtree v ... McCurtain, 61 F. 808, 10 C.C.A. 86 ... The ... rule applies with equal ... ...
-
Lockman v. Lang
... ... City of Lincoln v. Sun-Vapor Street Light Co., 8 ... C.C.A. 253, 256, 59 F. 756, 759; Union Pac. R. Co ... v. Colorado Eastern R. Co., 4 C.C.A. 160, 54 F. 22; ... U.S. v. Goodrich, 4 C.C.A. 160, 161, 54 F. 21, 22 ... In Frame v ... appeal was allowed. There are other authorities which ... illustrate the application of this rule: Flahrity v ... Railroad Co., 6 C.C.A. 167, 56 F. 908, Crabtree v ... McCurtain, 10 C.C.A. 86, 61 F. 808; Lloyd v ... Chapman, 35 C.C.A. 474, 93 F. 599; ... ...
-
Joplin Ice Co. v. United States
...Bank (C.C.A.) 129 F. 257; Webber v. Mihills (C.C.A.) 124 F. 64; Frame v. Portland Gold Mining Co. (C.C.A.) 108 F. 750; Flahrity v. Union P. Railroad Co. (C.C.A.) 56 F. 908; Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Colorado E. R. R. Co. (C.C. A.) 54 F. 22; United States v. Goodrich (C.C.A.) 54 F. To sanct......