Woods v. Lindvall
| Decision Date | 01 January 1891 |
| Citation | 48 F. 73 |
| Parties | WOODS et al. v. LINDVALL. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
This is a motion to strike the bill of exceptions from the record for the alleged reason that it was not filed in time to become a part of the record. The case appears to have been tried at the January term, 1891, of the circuit court for the third division of the district of Minnesota. 44 F. 855. The verdict was returned on February 11, 1891, and on the same day judgment was entered on the verdict according to the usual practice in that district. On the following day, pursuant to section 987, Rev. St. U.S., plaintiffs in error asked and obtained a stay of execution for 42 days, to enable them to file a petition for a new trial. During the January term, and within the 42 days, such petition for a new trial was filed but the January term adjourned sine die before the motion was heard or determined. At the succeeding June term, 1891, the petition for a new trial was argued and overruled, and at the same term, to-wit, July 30, 1891, a bill of exceptions was signed, sealed, and filed. The defendant in error duly objected to the allowance of the bill because the trial term had expired. It further appears that no order was entered at the January term, 1891, expressly extending the time for filing the bill to the June term, 1891, nor was any consent given that it might be so filed.
John M Shaw and W. R. Cray, for plaintiffs in error.
John W Arctander, for defendant in error.
Before CALDWELL, HALLET, and THAYER, JJ.
(after stating the facts as above.) We are all agreed that the motion to strike out the bill of exceptions should be overruled. It is true that in several cases cited by counsel for defendant in error, to-wit, Walton v. U.S., 9 Wheat. 651; Ex parte Bradstreet, 4 Pet. 102, and Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U.S. 249,-- it was held in effect that, in the absence of an order of court extending the time, a bill of exceptions covering errors committed at the trial cannot be allowed and filed (unless by consent of parties) after the term has expired at which the judgment was rendered. But in none of these cases did the question arise whether a bill of exceptions may not be allowed and filed at the term when the motion for a new trial is finally acted on, even though such action is taken at a term subsequent to the entry of judgment; and that is the precise question which confronts us in the case at bar. The authorities cited are either cases in which no motion for a new trial was filed, or in which the bill of exceptions was presented after the lapse of the term at which the motion for a new trial was overruled. According to well-established principles, therefore, the judgments involved had become final at a term preceding that at which a bill of exceptions was tendered. Since the decision in Rutherford v. Insurance Co., 1 Fed.Rep. 456, we believe the practice has been uniform in all the districts of this circuit, where the custom prevails of entering judgment immediately on the rendition of verdict, to allow a bill of exceptions during the term at which the motion for a new trial is overruled, even though it happens to be a term subsequent to the entry of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. Douglass
...Sater, 223 F. 611; In re Bills of Exceptions, 37 F.(2d) 849. 4 Tullis v. Lake Erie & W. R. Co., 105 F. 554, 44 C.C.A. 597. 5 Woods v. Lindvall, 48 F. 73, 1 C.C.A. 34; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Russell, 60 F. 501, 9 C.C.A. 108; U. S. v. Carr, 61 F. 802, 10 C.C.A. 80; O. J. Moore Grocer Co.......
-
City of Manning v. German Ins. Co.
......The. failure of the court to decide the motion would not have. deprived it of jurisdiction. Woods v. Lindvall, 48. F. 73, I.C.C.A. 34, 4 U.S.App. 45. The illness of Judge. Woolson did not prevent the plaintiff from obtaining a bill. of ......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Johnson
...it was certainly a circumstance proper to be considered by the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion. The case of Woods v. Lindvall, 1 C.C.A. 34, 48 F. 73, is point, although there the motion for a new trial was determined, and the bill of exceptions allowed and filed, at a term sub......
-
Marion Steam Shovel Co. v. Reeves
...224; United States v. Carr (C. C. A. 8) 61 F. 802, 803; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Russell (C. C. A. 8) 60 F. 501, 503; Woods v. Lindvall (C. C. A. 8) 48 F. 73. No bill of exceptions was presented by the defendant in the case during the April, 1934, term which expired on the third day of N......