In re Woods et al

• Decision Date: 29 February 1892
• Citation: 12 S.Ct. 417,36 L.Ed. 125,143 U.S. 202
• Parties: In re WOODS et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

143 U.S. 202

12 S.Ct. 417

36 L.Ed. 125

In re WOODS et al.

February 29, 1892.

STATEMENT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.

This was an action brought by August Lindvall in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota against John Woods and Stephen B. Lovejoy, partners as Woods & Lovejoy, to recover for a personal injury alleged to have been caused through the negligence of the defendants. The issues were a general denial and the plea of former adjudication.

The case was twice tried, and upon the first trial the plea of former adjudication was sustained, but a new trial was granted for the reasons given in the opinions of Mr. Justice MILLER and Judge NELSON, reported in 47 Fed. Rep. 195. The second trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $3,800, and costs taxed at $142.50, and, a motion for new trial having been overruled, the case was taken by writ of error to the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit.

In the circuit court it was contended, on the merits, that the rule which precludes a servant from recovering from his master for an injury received through the negligence of fellow-servants was applicable, and upon the conclusion of the evidence the defendants moved the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict for them on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to make out a cause of action, which motion was denied, exception taken, and the ruling assigned for error. The circuit court of appeals held that the rule invoked did not apply, and that the verdict was sustained by the evidence. 4 U. S. App. 49, 48 Fed. Rep. 62.

From the bill of exceptions it appeared that to sustain their plea of a former adjudication, the defendants offered in evidence a duly certified transcript of record, which showed the following facts:

'That the same plaintiff had brought an action against the same defendants, upon exactly the same cause, for the same injury, in the district court of the state of Minnesota for the county of Hennepin, a court of general jurisdiction in said state.

'That upon the trial of said cause in said district court, after the plaintiff had put in all his evidence and rested his case the defendants moved said district court to dismiss said action upon the ground that the evidence of plaintiff did not make out a case against said defendants; which motion, after due and solemn argument by both defendants and plaintiff, and upon due consideration, was granted by said district court, and said action was dismissed.

'That thereupon the plaintiff procured a stay of proceedings, and made up and procured to be settled and signed by the judge who tried the case a settled case and exceptions containing all the evidence, and upon the pleadings and such settled case made a motion for a new trial, in said district court; that said motion for a new trial, after due hearing and consideration, was denied by said district court.

'That thereupon said plaintiff, under the practice and procedure in the Minnesota courts in such cases, appealed to the supreme court of Minnesota from said order denying the motion for a new trial, and carried to the supreme court upon such appeal the pleadings and all the evidence given in the court below.

'That the case, upon said appeal, was duly heard and tried in said supreme court, and the decision and order of said district court was by said supreme court duly and in all things affirmed.

'That thereupon a mandate issued from said supreme court to said district court for further proceedings in accordance with such decision, and upon the filing of said mandate judgment in...