1. This Court has no jurisdiction to revise the action of an
inferior court upon the question of either granting or refusing a
new trial, and the final judgment of such court cannot be examined
through its rulings upon that question. If, when the final judgment
is brought here for review by writ of error, no other documents are
presented for consideration than such as were before the inferior
court upon the application for a new trial, this Court cannot look
into them, and if error is not otherwise disclosed by the record,
the judgment will be affirmed.
2. This Court must have before it a bill of exceptions, or what
is equivalent thereto, upon which the final judgment of the court
below was reviewed, or it will not examine into any alleged errors
except such as are otherwise apparent on the face of the
record.
The record in this case shows that several issues of fact
regularly made up were tried by a jury in the Third Judicial
District Court of the Territory of Utah, that a verdict was
returned in favor of the defendants in error for $3,583, and a
judgment rendered thereon, Nov. 11, 1874, but it does not show that
any exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court either
admitting or rejecting evidence or to instructions given or to
those refused, nor does it contain anything purporting to be a bill
of exceptions.
It shows, however, that a motion for a new trial was made on
that day, and that a "statement or motion for a new trial" was also
filed on the 20th of March, 1875. At the foot of the statement is
the following agreement, signed by attorneys for both parties: "It
is hereby agreed that the foregoing shall constitute the statement
on motion for a new trial in the above-entitled cause, and is
correct." Endorsed on the statement is the following: "Settled
statement on new trial, filed March 20, 1875."
This statement purports to give certain rulings of the court
upon the admission and rejection of evidence and upon instructions
to the jury given and refused, and exceptions which, it is said,
were taken, but, by express agreement of the parties by their
attorneys, the use of the statement is limited to the hearing of
the motion for a new trial.
The record also shows that defendants below gave notice of
Page 95 U. S. 189
an appeal to the supreme court of the territory from the
judgment entered on the verdict, as well as from that of the 1st of
May, 1875, overruling the motion for new trial, and the bond
recites an appeal from both judgments.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.
By the system of procedure in civil cases adopted in Utah, an
appeal lies to its supreme court from an order of its district
courts granting or refusing a new trial, as well as from a final
judgment. The statute enumerates the grounds upon which the verdict
of a jury or the finding of a court or a referee may be set aside
and a new trial had upon the application of the party aggrieved,
and provides the mode in which such grounds shall be presented to
the court. If the new trial be asked for irregularity in the
proceedings of the court, jury, or adverse party, or for abuse of
discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair
trial, or for misconduct of the jury, or accident or surprise which
ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, or for newly
discovered evidence, the application must be made upon affidavits.
If the new trial be asked for excessive damages, or insufficiency
of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, or that
it is against law, or for errors occurring at the trial, the
application must be made upon a statement of the case, setting
forth so much of the proceedings had, evidence given or offered,
and rulings of the court as will distinctly present the grounds
urged in its support. But whether the application be made upon
affidavits, or a statement thus prepared, the rulings thereon,
whether of the District Court originally, or of the supreme court
of the territory on appeal, are not subject to review by this
tribunal. We have no jurisdiction to revise the action of an
inferior court upon the question of granting or refusing a new
trial, however meritorious the grounds presented for its
consideration or erroneous its decision. The final judgment cannot
be examined through the rulings of the lower court upon that
question. If, therefore, when the final judgment is brought
before
Page 95 U. S. 190
us for review by writ of error, no other documents are presented
for our consideration than such as were before the inferior court
upon the application for a new trial, we cannot look into them, and
if error is not otherwise disclosed by the record, the judgment
must be affirmed. And such is the condition of the case at bar. No
question was before the district court or the supreme court of the
territory except such as arose on the application for a new
trial.
The statute of Utah also provides the mode in which the final
judgments of its district courts may be reviewed. It requires a
statement of the errors alleged upon which the appellant relies,
with so much of the evidence as may be necessary to explain them.
Compiled Laws of Utah of 1876, secs. 1413, 1550, and 1555. This
statement is only another name for a bill of exceptions, and is
subject to similar rules. It will often embody substantially the
same matters which are presented on a motion for a new trial, and
it is not uncommon for counsel to stipulate that the statement on
the motion shall be treated as a statement or bill of exceptions on
appeal from the judgment. But unless it is so stipulated, the
statement intended for the motion cannot be used on appeal from the
judgment, or considered here. We must have before us a bill of
exceptions, or what is equivalent to such bill, upon which the
final judgment below was reviewed by the section of the territory
or we cannot examine into any alleged errors except such as are
otherwise apparent on the face of the record. The statement in the
present case not being one into which we can look, there is no
error presented upon which we can pass.
Sparrow v.
Strong, 4 Wall. 584;
Casgrave v. Howland,
24 Cal. 457;
Carpenter v. Williamson, 25
id.
154.
Judgment affirmed.