Jones v. Buckell
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 841,104 U.S. 554 |
| Parties | JONES v. BUCKELL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.
This was ejectment for lands in Jacksonville, Florida, brought by John and Mary E. Buckell against Jones and others. Plea, not guilty. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs, upon which judgment was rendered. The defendants sued out this writ.
The bill of exceptions does not contain any of the evidence on the trial, but relates to the charge, which is set out in the opinion of this court.
The following agreement signed by the attorneys of the respective parties was filed in the court below:——
'The plaintiffs and defendants, by their attorneys, admit the following to be true, without the necessity of introducing evidence in proof thereof, that is to say:
'The defendants on their part admit that Francis E. Yale and Mary E. Buckell are the children and only heirs-at-law of Charles Willey, and that the lands in controversy are the same lands which the defendants were in possession of at the date of the service of summons in this suit.'
The case was argued by Mr. William A. Beach for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Charles W. Jones for the defendants in error.
The question argued in this case is, whether, under the act of Aug. 6, 1861, c. 60, 'to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes' (12 Stat. 319), a condemnation carried the fee of lands confiscated, or only the life-estate of the owner; but we cannot discover that such a question is fairly presented by the record for our consideration. The ruling of the court below on the motion for a new trial is not reviewable her. This is well settled. Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch, 11; Railway Company v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120.
The only questions, therefore, arising on the bill of exceptions, are those presented by the exception to the following opinion and charge of the court to the jury:——
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krauss Bros Lumber Co v. Mellon
...as such. National Bank v. Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19, 29, 21 L. Ed. 554; Reed v. Gardner, 17 Wall. 409, 411, 21 L. Ed. 665; Jones v. Buckell, 104 U. S. 554, 26 L. Ed. 841; Hanna v. Maas, 122 U. S. 24, 7 S. Ct. 1055, 30 L. Ed. But in Leftwitch v. Lecanu, 4 Wall. 187, on page 189, 18 L. Ed. 388, Mr......
-
Buskirk v. Red Buttes Land and Live Stock Company
...... materiality of the charge complained of and not merely that. it was wrong as an abstract proposition. ( Jones v. Buckell, 104 U.S. 554.) The record does not present the. errors complained of in a form sufficient to justify a. reversal. It will be observed ......
-
Wallace v. Skinner
......R. A., 769 (Ill.); Debney v. State, 45 Neb. 856.) In the absence of the evidence the. refusal of instructions will not be considered. ( Jones v. Buckness, 104 U.S. 554; McKenzie v. 0McCall, 3. Ala. 516; Territory v. Clanton, 20 P. 94; Nelson. v. Mitchell, 10 Cal. 922; Hammond v. ......
-
Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co
...exceptions relating to the hearing on the jurisdictional issues. Dunlop v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 242, 270, 3 L. Ed. 329; Jones v. Buckell, 104 U. S. 554, 556, 26 L. Ed. 841. It appears from this evidence that the defendant-which resides and has its principal place of business in New York-had no......