If the jury return a verdict for the plaintiff after the court
in its charge instructs them to "disregard altogether" evidence on
the plaintiff's part which had been improperly introduced and had
been excepted to, the defendant cannot assign error here in this
respect.
Page 123 U. S. 525
Rulings of the court below on questions of law will not be
considered here on a writ of error unless it appears from the bill
of exceptions or otherwise in the record that the facts were such
as to make them material to the issue which was tried.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was brought by Madison, the defendant in error, for
injuries received by him through the alleged negligence of the New
York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company while he was in its
employ as a brakeman. He charged in his petition that
"after a train of cars operated by said defendant, and on which
train he was employed as aforesaid, had stopped at the Town of
Mantua, a station along the line of said company in the district
and division aforesaid, it became necessary in the course of his
duties to step between two cars of said train for the purpose of
uncoupling them, and while so engaged, without any fault or
negligence on his part, but through the fault and negligence of
this defendant in permitting its roadbed at said town to remain in
an unsafe, insecure, and dangerous condition, all of which was
unknown to this plaintiff, his right foot was caught and held fast
in said roadbed, and while so caught and held, being unable to
extricate it, he was, without any fault on his part but through the
negligence and carelessness of defendant, struck, jammed, and run
over by one of defendant's cars, so injuring his left leg as to
necessitate its amputation, and cause the loss thereof."
The answer denied that the injury was caused by the negligence
of the company and insisted that it happened through the fault of
the plaintiff himself. The errors assigned here are:
1. That the circuit court erred in the admission of incompetent
at the trial, and
Page 123 U. S. 526
2. that the circuit court erred in its charge to the jury.
In reference to the first of these assignments, the bill of
exceptions shows that at the trial, several witnesses were called
by the plaintiff who were permitted to testify to certain
alterations which were made in the roadbed by the section foreman,
with the knowledge and approval of the roadmaster, after the
accident occurred. This was objected to at the time, and exceptions
were duly taken, but the court, in submitting the case to the jury,
directed them to disregard that testimony altogether, as it had
been improperly admitted, and must not be considered as tending to
prove that the "railroad track was not in a reasonably safe
condition at the time." It is true that in one place in its charge
the court said this evidence was "not to be regarded . . . as an
admission of the defendant of the defective character of the
roadbed," but afterwards it was expressly stated that the testimony
was not to be considered at all, as the section foreman could not
at the time the alterations were made, do anything that would bind
the company upon the question of the condition of the track when
the accident occurred. The jury could not have been misled on this
subject.
As to the other error assigned, it is sufficient to say that
there is nothing in the record to show the materiality of the
charge complained of or of the requests to charge which were
refused. No part of the evidence save that which was excepted to is
set out in the bill of exceptions, and there is no such statement
of the facts proven as will enable us to see that the charge as
given or refused had any reference to the case as it appeared at
the trial. The record as it comes to us presents only abstract
questions of law, which may or may not have been ruled in a way to
affect the defendant injuriously. It has long been settled that
such questions will not be considered here on a writ of error
unless it appears from the bill of exceptions or otherwise in the
record that the facts were such as to make them material to the
issue which was tried. As was said in
Dunlop
v. Monroe, 7 Cranch 270:
"Each bill of exceptions must be considered as presenting a
distinct and substantive case, and it is on the evidence stated, in
itself, alone, that
Page 123 U. S. 527
the Court is to decide. We cannot go beyond it and collect other
facts which must have been in the mind of the party and the
insertion of which in this bill of exceptions could alone have
sanctioned the opinion as prayed for."
To the same effect is
Worthington v. Mason,
101 U. S. 149,
101 U. S. 152,
where this appears:
"As we understand the principles on which judgments here are
reviewed by writ of error, that error must appear by some ruling on
the pleadings or on a state of facts presented to this Court. Those
facts, apart from the pleadings, can only be shown here by a
special verdict, an agreed statement duly signed and submitted to
the court below, or by bill of exceptions. When, in the latter,
complaint is made of the instructions given or refused, it must be
accompanied by a distinct statement of testimony given or offered
which raises the question to which the instructions apply. . . .
The proof of the facts which make the charge erroneous must be
distinctly set forth, or it must appear that evidence was given
tending to prove them."
See also United States v.
Morgan, 11 How. 153,
52 U. S. 158;
Reed v.
Gardner, 17 Wall. 409;
Jones v. Buckell,
104 U. S. 554;
Phoenix Life Ins. Co. v. Raddin, 120 U.
S. 183,
120 U. S.
196.
Upon the record as it comes to us, we find no error, and the
judgment is consequently
Affirmed.