Gulf Ry Co v. Shane

• Decision Date: 01 April 1895
• Docket Number: No. 212,212
• Citation: 157 U.S. 348,39 L.Ed. 727,15 S.Ct. 641
• Parties: GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. SHANE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

157 U.S. 348

15 S.Ct. 641

39 L.Ed. 727

GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO.

v SHANE.

No. 212.

April 1, 1895.

A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, J. W. Terry, and George R. Peck, for plaintiff in error.

A. H. Garland and Wm. M. Cravens, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff below sued to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. There was a verdict and judgment in his favor for $16,000.

The defendant then brought the case here by error. The writ of error was allowed and sealed on June 5, 1891. It is contended that we are without jurisdiction, because, by the act creating the circuit courts of appeals, the court of appeals for the Eighth circuit has alone jurisdiction of this controversy. It is settled 'that by the joint resolution of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1115), the jurisdiction was preserved as to pending cases and cases wherein the writ of error or appeal should be sued out or taken before July 1, 1891.' Wauton v. De Wolf, 142 U. S. 140, 12 Sup. Ct. 173; Mason v. Mining Co., 153 U. S. 364, 14 Sup. Ct. 847.

The assignments of error are many, but we deem it necessary to consider only one of them; namely, that which relates to the method adopted by the court in impaneling the jury. It is thus recited in the bill of exceptions:

'Whereupon, and before the jury was impaneled in this cause, defendant's counsel requested the court to cause a list of eighteen competent and qualified jurors to be made, and to furnish counsel for both parties with a copy of such list of eighteen qualified jurors, from which counsel for each party might strike the names of three jurors, and from which said list the twelve jurors to try this cause should be selected, and that the jury to try this cause be selected in accordance with the statutes in such cases made and provided. The court refused to grant this request of defendant's counsel, for the reason that the rule had been established by the court since its organization that exceptions should be taken to the twelve men that might be called into the box, and to this refusal defendant then and there at the time duly excepted and still excepts.'

By the act of congress entitled 'An act to provide a temporary government for the territory of Oklahoma, to enlarge the jurisdiction of the United States court in the In- dian Territory, and for other purposes' (26 Stat. 81), it is provided 'certain general laws of the state of Arkansas, in force at the close of the session of the general assembly of that state or 1883, as published in 1884, in the volume known as Mansfield's Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas, which are not locally inapplicable or in conflict with this act or of any law of congress relating to the subject specially mentioned in this section, are hereby extended over and put in force in the Indian Territory until congress shall otherwise provide; that is to say, the provisions of said general statutes of Arkansas relating to,' etc. The act then enumerates certain provisions of the general statutes of Arkansas as found in Mansfield's Digest, including the following: 'To jury, chap. 90.' The law relating to the question here raised is found in chapter 90 of Mansfield's Digest, (sections 4013-4015).

Section 4013 provides that 'if either party shall desire a panel, the court shall cause the names of twenty-four competent jurors written upon separate slips of paper to be placed in a box to be kept for that purpose from which the names of eighteen shall be drawn and entered on a list in the order in which they are drawn and numbered.'

Section 4014 enacts: 'Each party shall be furnished with a copy of said list, from which each may strike the names of three jurors, and return the list so struck to...