Missouri Pac Ry Co v. Chicago Co
| Citation | 33 L.Ed. 309,132 U.S. 191,10 S.Ct. 65 |
| Parties | MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. v. CHICAGO & A. R. CO |
| Decision Date | 25 November 1889 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
John F. Dillon, for plaintiff in error.
Alex. Martin, for defendant in error.
In this action, tried by the circuit court without a jury, there is no case stated by the parties, or finding of facts by the court. The bill of exceptions, after setting forth all the evidence introduced at the trial, states that 'there were no declarations of law asked for or given by the court;' and the single exception taken is to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, which is a matter of discretion, and not a subject of exception, according to the practice of the courts of the United States. In regard to motions for a new trial and bills of exceptions, those courts are independent of any statute or practice prevailing in the courts of the state in which the trial is had. Railroad Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581; In re Iron Co., 128 U. S. 544, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co. v. Marland
... ... held that the courts of the United States are independent of ... state statutes and practice. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v ... C. & A.R.R. Co., 132 U.S. 191, 10 Sup.Ct. 65, 33 L.Ed ... 309; Francisco v. C. & A.R.R. co., 149 F. 354, 79 ... C.C.A ... ...
-
Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co
...Co. v. Heck, 102 U.S. 120, 26 L.Ed. 58; Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 595, 26 L.Ed. 253; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago & Alton R.R. Co., 132 U.S. 191, 10 S.Ct. 65, 33 L.Ed. 309; Fitzgerald Constr. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U.S. 98, 113, 11 S.Ct. 36, 34 L.Ed. 608; Holmgren v. Unit......
-
United States v. Julius Mayer
...& St. L. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 Page 70 U. S. 291, 301, 23 L. ed. 898, 901, 7 Am. Neg. Cas. 331; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 132 U. S. 191, 33 L. ed. 309, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 65; Fishburn v. Chicago, M. & St. L. R. Co. 137 U. S. 60, 34 L. ed. 585, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 8; Fuller v. Unite......
-
Murphy v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ETC.
...etc., R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U.S. 291, 23 L.Ed. 898; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U.S. 581, 24 L.Ed. 1085; Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Chicago & Alton R. Co., 132 U.S. 191, 10 S.Ct. 65, 33 L. Ed. 309; Fishburn v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R., 137 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 8, 34 L.Ed. 585; United States v. ......