Railway Company v. Twombly
| Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
| Citation | 100 U.S. 78,25 L.Ed. 550 |
| Parties | RAILWAY COMPANY v. TWOMBLY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado.
This was an action of trespass on the case, brought Aug. 30, 1873, in the District Court of the first judicial district for the county of Arapahoe, in the then Territory of Colorado, by Louisa Twombly, widow and administratrix of George W. K. Twombly, deceased, against the Kansas Pacific Railway Company, to recover damages for his death, caused, as she alleged, by the negligence of the agents and servants of the company, who were charged with the control and management of a locomotive and train of cars upon its road. Plea, not guilty. The issue was tried by a jury, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff at the April Term, 1874. A motion for a new trial, for reasons filed therewith, was then made. It was, at the October Term, argued and overruled, and judgment rendered; which, on appeal to the Supreme Court of the Territory, was affirmed, March 28, 1876.
The company excepted to the overruling of the motion for a new trial. Its bill of exceptions was tendered within the time limited therefor, and was signed and sealed by the court.
Among other reasons filed for a new trial is that the court 'erred in refusing to give to the jury each and every instruction asked by the defendant, and also in giving each and every instruction not asked by the defendant;' but it does not appear that, at the time when instructions were given or refused, an exception was reserved and brought into the record by bill of exceptions.
The Statute of Colorado (Rev. Stat. Col. 1868, 508) provides that in all cases 'where either party shall except to any ruling, decision, or opinion of the court, and shall reduce such exception or exceptions to writing, it shall be the duty of the judge to allow the same, and sign and seal the same, at any time during the terms of the court at which such exceptions were taken, or at any time thereafter to be fixed by the court.'
The Supreme Court, on motion of the appellee, struck out from the bill of exceptions tendered on the refusal to grant a new trial all that part relating to the instructions.
The action was founded upon an act of the Territory approved Feb. 8, 1873, providing that 'when the death of any person is caused by the wrongful act, misconduct, negligence, or omission of another, the personal representatives of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter, if the former might have maintained an action had he or she lived, against the latter for the same act, misconduct, negligence, or omission: Provided, the action shall be commenced within two years from the date of the death of the injured person; that the damages shall inure to the exclusive benefit, first, of the husband or wife, if living, and if there be no husband or wife, to the child or children of the deceased; secondly, if there is neither a husband, wife, child or children living, then to the father and mother, or to the surviving parent, if any.'
This act was repealed by a statute of the State of Colorado, March 7, 1877. This writ of error, and a duly approved and accepted bond to render it a supersedeas, were filed in the clerk's office of the Supreme Court of the Territory, May 4, 1876.
Mr. John P. Usher and Mr. Samuel Shellabarger for the plaintiff in error.
This action was brought, not upon a contract, or for the enforcement of a common-law right, but upon a statute, which allowed the recovery of damages in the nature of a penalty. It is submitted,——
1. That when such an act is repealed, it must be regarded, so far as pending actions are concerned, as if it had never existed. Upon its repeal, the right of action, unless there be some special saving, expires. Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 329; Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 281; Rex v. Justices of London, 3 Burr. 1456. There can be no doubt, therefore, that had this suit been pending in the subordinate courts at the date of the absolute repeal of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. United Air Lines, Inc.
...done when errors are found in the record on which it rests and which were committed previous to its rendition." Railway Co. v. Twombly (1879) 100 U.S. 78, at 81, 25 L.Ed. 550. Not only has the distinction between forms of action been abolished by Rule 2, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, bu......
-
Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co
...22; Marine Ins. Co. v. Young, 5 Cranch. 187, 191, 3 L.Ed. 74; The Abbotsford, 98 U.S. 440, 445, 25 L.Ed. 168; Kansas P. Railway Co. v. Twombly, 100 U.S. 78, 81, 25 L.Ed. 550. In numerous cases no reference is made, in denying review, to the grounds for the motion. E.g., Barr v. Gratz, 4 Whe......
-
Huron Holding Corporation v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co
...9, 1940. And see Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487. 8 E.g., Kansas P. Railway Co. v. Twombly, 100 U.S. 78, 25 L.Ed. 550; Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U.S. 499, 24 S.Ct. 154, 48 L.Ed. 276. 9 Harris v. Balk, 198 U.S. 215, 226, 25 S.Ct. ......
-
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Richmond Guano Co.
... ... [297 F. 581] ... Eastern District of Virginia, against the Richmond Guano ... Company to recover the value of certain nitrate of soda ... stolen from the plaintiff by one W. B ... and determined. Ransom v. City of Pierre, 101 F ... 665, 41 C.C.A. 585; Railway Co. v. Twombly, 100 U.S ... 78, 25 L.Ed. 550; Brown v. Schintz, 203 Ill. 136, 67 ... N.E. 767; ... ...