Lancaster v. Collins
Citation | 6 S.Ct. 33,115 U.S. 222,29 L.Ed. 373 |
Parties | LANCASTER v. COLLINS. 1 Filed |
Decision Date | 02 November 1885 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
On the twenty-ninth of September, 1873, Henry E. Collins executed and delivered to the Big Muddy Iron Company his promissory note, payable 90 days after date, to its order for $10,000. It was indorsed successively by the company by Thomas O'Reilly, by Amelia Collins, and by Richard D. Lancaster. From the latter it passed to the national bank of the state of Missouri. The bank obtained a judgment on it against the company and O'Reilly and Henry E. Collins and Lancaster for $11,290.68, and costs. O'Reilly paid to the bank one-half of the amount due on the judgment, and Collins refunded it to him. Lancaster paid to the bank the other half of the amount due on the judgment, and then brought this suit against Collins to recover from him the sum so paid. Collins, in his answer to the petition, set up the following defense:
Issue being joined the action was tried by a jury, which found a verdict for Collins, and there was a judgment in his favor, whereupon Lancaster brought this writ of error.
There is a bill of exceptions containing all the evidence in the cause. It also sets forth the charge to the jury, but there is no exception to the charge. The plaintiff, however, requested the court, after the evidence was all in, to instruct the jury to render a verdict for the plaintiff, which request was refused, and the plaintiff excepted. This refusal is assigned for error, on the alleged ground of a variance between the proof and the answer.
Geo. A. Castleman, for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 224-225 intentionally omitted] No appearance for defendant in error.
It is contended that the answer alleges that the agreement made by Collins with Lancaster was made with the latter as president of the company, and that it does not allege any agreement by Lancaster personally to take the stock subscribed for by Collins and pay the note, while the verdict was rendered for the defendant on the theory that there was such an agreement by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Oil Co Oil Co v. United States
...Troxell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Co., 227 U.S. 434, 444, 33 S.Ct. 274, 277, 57 L.Ed. 586; Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U.S. 222, 225, 6 S.Ct. 33, 34, 29 L.Ed. 373. We have carefully reviewed the record for evidence of McElroy's knowledge of and participation in the conspiracy......
-
Kroska v. United States, 9002.
...has it long been the judicial appellate practice to regard nonprejudicial errors as insufficient for reversal (Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U. S. 222, 227, 6 S. Ct. 33, 29 L. Ed. 373), but all federal appellate courts are under the statutory injunction to disregard errors, in criminal as well ......
-
Cook v. Foley
...... have prejudiced the rights of the party against whom the. ruling was made. ( Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U.S. 222, 6 Sup.Ct. 33, 29 L.Ed. 373; Smith v. Shoemaker, . 17 Wall. 630, 21 L.Ed. 717; Decatur Bank v. St. Louis. Bank, 21 ......
-
Continental Casualty Company v. Holmes, 17409.
...1955, 226 F.2d 443, 446. 6 Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 1891, 140 U.S. 76, 91, 11 S.Ct. 720, 35 L.Ed. 371; Lancaster v. Collins, 1885, 115 U.S. 222, 6 S.Ct. 33, 29 L.Ed. 373. 7 Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 1938, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 12......