MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. CHICAGO & A. R. CO., 132 U. S. 191 (1889)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 132 U. S. 191
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/132/191/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/132/191/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 132 U.S. 191 (1889)
Missouri Pacific Railway Company v.
Chicago and Alton Railroad Company
No. 66
Submitted November 5, 1889
Decided November 25, 1889
132 U.S. 191
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Syllabus
In regard to motions for a new trial and bills of exceptions, the courts of the United States are independent of any statute or practice prevailing in the courts of the state in which the trial is had.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
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. Indianapolis Railroad v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581; Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U. S. 544.
Judgment affirmed.