In re Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBLATCHFORD
Citation128 U.S. 544,32 L.Ed. 508,9 S.Ct. 150
Decision Date10 December 1888
PartiesIn re CHATEAUGAY ORE & IRON CO

128 U.S. 544
9 S.Ct. 150
32 L.Ed. 508
In re CHATEAUGAY ORE & IRON CO.
December 10, 1888.

Page 545

A petition was filed in this court by the Chateaugay Ore & Iron Company, on the 8th of October, 1888, praying this court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Honorable NATHANIEL SHIPMAN, district judge of the district of Connecticut, assigned to hold, and who held, the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York, to settle a bill of exceptions according to the truth of the matters which took place before him on the trial of an action at law it that court, brought by Theodore A. Blake agains the Chateaugay Ore & Iron Company; and to sign the same, when so settled, as of the 10th of April, 1888, that being the day when such bill of exceptions was submitted to him. On the 15th of October, 1888, this court made an order that cause be shown, by Judge SHIPMAN, and by the plaintiff in the suit, on the 12th of November, 1888, why a writ of mandamus should not issue as prayed in the petition. The plaintiff showed cause, in answer to the petition, and appeared by counsel; but no cause was shown by Judge SHIPMAN, although the order was served on him personally on the 18th of October, 1888. We are therefore left without any authoritative statement from the judge as to the grounds on which he declined, as he did, to settle and sign a bill of exceptions, and can gather those grounds only from the statements of the petition for the writ, and of the answer of the this court to issue a writ of mandamus brought to recover the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, which actions were consolidated into one. The trial was had before Judge SHIPMAN and a jury, which, on the 25th of January, 1888, rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $9,574.53. The docket minute of the court of the proceedings after verdict,

Page 546

as first entered, showed that the court then made the following order: 'It is ordered that the defendant have forty days from January 25, 1888, within which to prepare and serve a case herein, with leave to turn the same into a bill of exceptions. It is further ordered that judgment may be entered on said verdict, and that the defendant have a stay of execution until the decision of the motion for a new trial herein.' On the 31st of January, 1888, a judgment was rendered in the action, in favor of the plaintiff, for $9,665.39, being the amount of the verdict and costs. On the 3d of March, 1888, being the thirty-eighth day after the 25th of January, 1888, the defendant served upon the attorneys of record for the plaintiff a proposed bill of exceptions. It was accepted and retained by such attorneys, and the service thereof was admitted in writing. On the 13th of March, 1888, the attorneys for the plaintiff applied to the attorneys for the defendant for 10 days' additional time within which to prepare and serve such amendments as they wished to make to the proposed bill of exceptions. In doing this, they acted upon the view that their time to prepare and serve such amendments did not expire until the 13th of March, 1888. Their application was granted, and a stipulation for 10 days' additional time was signed by the defendant's attorneys. On the 23d of March, 1888, the attorneys for the plaintiff served upon the attorneys for the defendant a paper containing 77 amendments which they desired to make to such proposed bill of exceptions. Some of such proposed amendments were agreed to by the defendant, while others were not agreed to. On the 27th of March, 1888, the attorneys for the defendant served upon the attorneys for the plaintiff a notice that the proposed bill of exceptions and proposed amendments would be presented to Judge SHIPMAN, for settlement and signature, on the 10th of April, 1888, at the United States court-rooms in the city of New York. Such notice of settlement was received and retained, without objection, by the attorneys for the plaintiff, and a written admission of the service thereof was given by them to the attorneys for the defendant.

Page 547

On the 10th of April, 1888, the defendant appeared by its attorneys before Judge SHIPMAN, and moved that the proposed bill of exceptions be settled and signed. The attorneys for the plaintiff appeared and opposed the motion, upon the ground that the term of court at which the action was tried had expired on the 31st of March; that the 40-days' time allowed by the court, within which to prepare and serve a bill of exceptions, had also expired; and that the plaintiff was out of court, and the court had no longer any jurisdiction over him. The motion was continued until the next day, when, both parties again appearing, Judge SHIPMAN announced his decision, sustaining the objections made on behalf of the plaintiff, for the reason, then stated orally by him, that the term of the court at which the action was tried had expired, and the 40 days originally allowed by the court had also expired, and no order had been made, or consent given by the plaintiff or his attorneys, extending the time for signing the bill of exceptions beyond the term at which the cause was tried, and no very extraordinary circumstances were shown in the case to justify the court in entertaining the application; so that, under the rule laid down in the case of Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U.S. 249, the application of the defendant for the settlement and signing of the bill of exceptions must be denied. On the denial of such motion, and on the 11th of April, 1888, the court made an order, entitled in the cause, which, after reciting as follows: 'In this case, at the October term, 1887, of this court, after judgment upon the verdict for the plaintiff, a stay of forty days, and until the decision of any motion for a new trial upon a bill of exceptions, having been granted, and the said forty days and the said October term of this court having passed, and no proper foundation by bill of exceptions having been taken by the defendant to move for a new trial,'—ordered that such stay of execution be vacated. On the 17th of April, 1888, the court, after hearing both parties, made an order amending the docket minute of the proceedings after verdict, and the judgment roll founded thereon, by striking out, in such docket minute, everything

Page 548

after the words 'it is ordered,' and inserting the following: 'Mr. Kellogg moves orally to set aside the verdict as against evidence, and for a new trial, upon a bill of exceptions to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 practice notes
  • Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland, 2112.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 22, 1917
    ...10 Sup.Ct. 65, 33 L.Ed. 309; Francisco v. C. & A.R.R. co., 149 F. 354, 79 C.C.A. 292, 9 Ann.Cas. 628; Chateaugay Ore and Iron Co., 128 U.S. 544, 9 Sup.Ct. 150, 32 L.Ed. 508; Knight v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 180 F. 368, 372, 103 C.C.A. 514; U.S. Comp. Stat. 1916, Ann. pp. 2969, 2976,......
  • Buessel v. United States, 178.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 16, 1919
    ...to bills of exceptions, or to the mode of reviewing a decision once made in the District Court. Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U.S. 544, 553, 9 Sup.Ct. 150, 32 L.Ed. 508; N.Y. & N.E.R. Co. v. Hyde, 56 F. 188, 5 C.C.A. 461. In most jurisdictions it is the rule that the appellate co......
  • Pollack v. Meyer Bros. Drug Co., 145.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 4, 1916
    ...power or duty to review a ruling of a United States District Court upon a demurrer after an answer over. Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U.S. 544, 554, 555, 9 Sup.Ct. 150, 32 L.Ed. 508; Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277, 281, 15 Sup.Ct. 450, 39 L.Ed. 424; St. Clair v. United States, 154 U......
  • United States v. Oppenheim
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • November 30, 1915
    ...257; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U.S. 436, 14 Sup.Ct. 387, 38 L.Ed. 224; Chateaugay, etc., Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U.S. 54, 9 Sup.Ct. 150, 32 L.Ed. 508. The court illustrated the mode in which a fact may be proved to exist, short of actually seeing the thing or acts which causes or caused an ex......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
90 cases
  • Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland, 2112.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • January 22, 1917
    ...10 Sup.Ct. 65, 33 L.Ed. 309; Francisco v. C. & A.R.R. co., 149 F. 354, 79 C.C.A. 292, 9 Ann.Cas. 628; Chateaugay Ore and Iron Co., 128 U.S. 544, 9 Sup.Ct. 150, 32 L.Ed. 508; Knight v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 180 F. 368, 372, 103 C.C.A. 514; U.S. Comp. Stat. 1916, Ann. pp. 2969, 2976,......
  • Buessel v. United States, 178.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 16, 1919
    ...to bills of exceptions, or to the mode of reviewing a decision once made in the District Court. Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U.S. 544, 553, 9 Sup.Ct. 150, 32 L.Ed. 508; N.Y. & N.E.R. Co. v. Hyde, 56 F. 188, 5 C.C.A. 461. In most jurisdictions it is the rule that the appellate co......
  • Pollack v. Meyer Bros. Drug Co., 145.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • May 4, 1916
    ...power or duty to review a ruling of a United States District Court upon a demurrer after an answer over. Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U.S. 544, 554, 555, 9 Sup.Ct. 150, 32 L.Ed. 508; Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277, 281, 15 Sup.Ct. 450, 39 L.Ed. 424; St. Clair v. United States, 154 U......
  • United States v. Oppenheim
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • November 30, 1915
    ...257; Lincoln v. Power, 151 U.S. 436, 14 Sup.Ct. 387, 38 L.Ed. 224; Chateaugay, etc., Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U.S. 54, 9 Sup.Ct. 150, 32 L.Ed. 508. The court illustrated the mode in which a fact may be proved to exist, short of actually seeing the thing or acts which causes or caused an ex......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT