Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 132 U.S. 191 (1889)

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

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.

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

Page 132 U. S. 192

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.