Jones v. East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R. Co.
157 U.S. 682 (1895)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Jones v. East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R. Co., 157 U.S. 682 (1895)

Jones v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad Company

No. 253.

Argued April 4, 1895

Decided April 8, 1895

157 U.S. 682

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Syllabus

The record showed that plaintiff asked six instructions, of which the court gave two, declined to give one, and declined to give the other three except as covered by the general charge. The whole charge was contained in the bill of exceptions, which thus concluded:

"To which refusal and charge of the court and the exclusion of evidence offered and to the action of the court in refusing a new trial, plaintiff excepted and tendered this bill of exceptions, which was signed and sealed by the court and ordered to be made a part of the record in this cause."

Held that this exception was insufficient.

The case is stated in the opinion.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.

This was an action on the case to recover damages for injuries received through the alleged negligence of the defendant. Ten errors were assigned, two of which relate to the exclusion of evidence. As to one of these, it was properly admitted at the bar that the evidence in question was not excluded, and that so much of the record as showed the contrary was taken from the record of a former trial of the case. As to the other, no exception to the action of the court was preserved. The remaining errors assigned relate to the refusal to give certain instructions requested by plaintiff, and to parts of the charge. The record shows that plaintiff asked six instructions, of which the court gave two, declined to give one, and declined to give the other three except as covered by the general charge. The whole charge is contained in the bill of exceptions, which thus concludes:

Page 157 U. S. 683

"To which refusal and charge of the court and the exclusion of evidence offered, and to the action of the court in refusing a new trial, plaintiff excepted, and tendered this bill of exceptions, which was signed and sealed by the court and ordered to be made a part of the record in this cause."

This exception was insufficient. Rule 4; Rogers v. The Marshal, 1 Wall. 644; Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 328; Insurance Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158; Beaver v. Taylor,93 U. S. 46; Block v. Darling,140 U. S. 238.

Judgment affirmed.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.