12 Field v. U. S., 9 Pet. 182, 9 L. ed. 94; U. S. v. King, 7 How. 833, 854, 12 L. ed. 934, 943; Howard v. Perrin, 200 U. S. 71, 50 L. ed. 374; Kuzek v. Magaha, C. C. A., 148 Fed. 618; Ajax Forge Co. v. Morden Frog & Crossing Forks, C. C. A., 164 Fed. 843.

13 Weyman-Bruton v. Ladd, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 898. See supra, § 705d.

14 National Bank V. Insurance Co., 95 U. S. 673, 679, 24 L. ed. 563, 565; Allen v. St. Louis Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 30 L. ed. 573; Cleveland R. M. Co. v. Rhodes, 121 U. S. 255, 30 L. ed. 920; Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 U. S. 150, 28 L. ed. 636; Graham v. Bayne, 18 How. 60, 15 L. ed. 265; Bayne v. U. S., C. C. A., 195 Fed. 236. Cf. Walker v. Windsor Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 56 Fed. 76; Knight v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., C. C. A., 180 Fed. 368; Fellman v. Royal Ins. Co., C. C. A., 184 Fed. 577. But see St. Louis v. W. U. Tel. Co., 148 U. S. 92, 37 L. ed. 380; Miller v. Houston City St. R. Co., C. C. A., 55 Fed. 366; Mundy v. Stevens, C. C. A., 61 Fed. 77, 86; Bierce v. Hutchins, 205 U. S. 340, 51 L. ed. 828; Slocum v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364, 57

L. ed. -. This is usually done when the Supreme Court reverses a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals ordering a new trial. Delk v. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co., 220 U. S. 580, 55 L. ed. 590. It was held to be improper to direct the entry of judgment upon a verdict on a former trial which had been erroneously set aside although the judgment upon a subsequent verdict was reversed. McGovern v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 235 U. S. 389; Louis. & Nash. R. R. v. Stewart, 241 U. S. 261.

15 Fisher v. Newark City Ice Co., C. C. A., 3rd Ct., 62 Fed. 569, .containing an argument by the writer citing cases in support of this decision. See Am. Locomotive Co. v. Harris, C. C. A., 239 Fed. 234; Empire Fuel Co. v. Lyons, C. C. A., 257 Fed. 890. It was held otherwise in an action for tort, Farrar v. Wheeler, C. C. A., 1st Ct., 145 Fed. 482. In McKeon v. Central Stamping Co., C. C. A., 3rd Ct., 264 Fed. 385; the court refused to follow a New Jersey statute passed in 1912 providing that: "when a new trial is ordered because the damages are excessive or inadequate, the

verdict shall be set aside only in respect of damages and shall stand good in all other respects; "' holding that this was not constitutional.

16 Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Reddick, C. C. A., 7th Ct., 160 Fed. 898; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stephens, C. C. A., 216 Fed. 535; Fentress Coal & Coke Co. v. Elmore, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 328; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Allen, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 280; Alexandria Paper Co. v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 122. See Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Gilliland, C. C. A., 193 Fed. 608, 113 C. C. A. 476; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Whilden, C. C. A., 195 Fed. 263; Empire Fuel Co. v. Lyons, C. C. A., 257 Fed. 890.

§ 711b. 1 Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall. 659, 20 L. ed. 29; Silsby v. Foote, 14 How. 218, 14 L. ed. 394; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160, 17 L. ed. 922; Cheang-Kee v. U. S., 3 Wall. 320, 18 L. ed. 72; Barton v. Forsyth, 5 Wall. 190, 18 L. ed. 545; De La Rama v. De La Rama, 241 U. S. 154. A refusal to quash an indictment, will ordinarly not be reviewed, U. S. v. Gooding, 12 Wheaton, 460, 6 L. ed. 693; Betts v. U. S., C. C. A., 231; supra, § 515.

132 Fed. 228, The mode of

conducting trials, the order of introducing evidence, and the time when it is to be introduced, are properly matters belonging to the practice of the trial court, with which the appellate court ought not to interfere. Philadelphia & T. R. Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. 448, 10 L. ed. 535. See infra, § 711g. So are all questions as to surprise, as to reopening a case, or as to the order of proof. Ames v. Quimby, 106 U. S. 342, 27 L. ed. 100. A judgment may, but rarely will, be reversed for the expressions of opinion on the facts by the judge in his charge, when he left all the questions of fact to the decision of the jury. Cf. Arey v. De Loriea, C. C. A., 55 Fed. 323. But see supra, § 527b. The decision of the trial court as to which party is entitled to the opening and closing of the argument to the jury will not be reviewed by the court of error. Hall v. Weare, 92 U. S. 728, 23 L. ed. 500; Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363, 14 L. ed. 181; Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U. S. 222, 29 L. ed. 373; at least where it does not appear that the plaintiff in error was thereby prejudiced, New York Dry Goods Store v. Pabst Brewing Co., C. C. A., 112 Fed. 381, 383. An allowance or refusal

of an amendment to a pleading is ordinarily a matter for the discretion of the court below. Jenkins v. Banning, 23 How. 455, 16 L. ed. 580; Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634, 8 L. ed. 810; Wright v. Hollingsworth, 1 Pet. 165, 7 L. ed. 96; Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How. 264, 15 L. ed. 902; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1, 29, 44 L. ed. 49, 60; Rucker v. Bolles, C. C. A., 133 Fed. 858; Dunn v. Mayo Mills, C. C. A., 134 Fed. 804, 806; Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Nelson, 226 Fed. 708; Ames v. Sullivan, C. C. A., 235 Fed. 880. But in an extraordinary case a decision thereupon may be reviewed. Riddle v. Whitehill. 135 U. S. 621, 627, 640, 34 L. ed. 282, 285, 289; Herman V. Am. Bridge Co., C. C. A., 11 Fed. 930 (where there were reversals for refusals to permit an amendment). Warner v. Godrey, 186 U. S. 365, 46 L. ed. 1203 (here a reversal was made because of a grant of permission to amend). Cordingly v. Kennedy, C. C. A., 239 Fed. 645. Upon a trial, plaintiff was allowed to withdraw a juror and given permission to amend his declaration within a specified time, and subsequently, after the jurors had been discharged, he was ordered to pay the costs of the term as a condition for such amendment, and in default thereof his complaint was dismissed. For this the judgment was reversed. Jackson v. Emmons, 176 U. S. 532, 44 L. ed. 576. See supra, § 215. The same rule applies to a motion to amend a judgment. Mason v. Smith, C. C. A., 191 Fed. 502; Des Moines v. Des Moines Water Co., C. C. A., 230 Fed. 570. The refusal of the court below to allow new pleas to be filed cannot be

assigned as error except in case of a gross abuse of discretion. Mandeville v. Wilson, 5 Cranch, 15, 17, 3 L. ed. 23, 24; Marine Ins. Co. v. Hodgson, 6 Cranch, 206, 3 L. ed. 200; U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pt. 12, 7 L. ed. 585; Dean v. Mason, 20 How. 198, 15 L. ed. 876; Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How. 264, 15 L. ed. 902; Etna Ins. Co. v. Weide, 9 Wall. 677, 19 L. ed. 810; Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677, 32 L. ed. 800; Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623, 631, 34 L. ed. 1086, 1089. In an extraordinary case the appellate court may review a refusal to al low the filing of a supplemental answer. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1, 29, 44 L. ed. 49, 60. The grant of permission to withdraw a juror is usually not reviewable. Tex. & Pac. Ry. v. Hill, 237 U. S. 208; Huntington v. Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co., C. C. A., 175 Fed. 532. The continuance of a case or the refusal to continue it is in the discretion of the court to which the motion is made. Woods v. Young, 4 Cranch, 237, 2 L. ed. 607; Sims v. Hundley, 6 How. 1, 12 L. ed. 319; Thompson v. Selden, 20 How. 194, 15 L. ed. 1001; McFaul v. Ramsey, 20 How. 523, 15 L. ed. 1010; Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wall. 659, 20 L. ed. 29; Cox v. Hart, 145 U. S. 376, 36 L. ed. 741; Pickett v. U. S., 216 U. S. 456, 54 L. ed. 566; Guardian Assurance Co. of London v. Quintana, 227 U. S. 100; Tex. & Pac. Ry. v. Hill, 237 U. S. 208; Davis v. Patrick, C. C. A., 57 Fed. 909; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Humble, C. C. A., 97 Fed. 837; Means v. Bank of Randall, 146 U. S. 620, 36 L. ed. 1107; Drexel v. True, C. C. A., 74 Fed. 12; Baker v. Texarkana Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 74 Fed. 598;

Hardy v. U. S., 186 U. S. 224, 46 L. ed. 1137; Copper River Min. Co. v. McClellan, C. C. A., 138 Fed. 333; Myers v. Kessler, C. C. A., 142 Fed. 730; Huntington v. Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co., C. C. A., 175 Fed. 532; St. Louis Stave & Lumber Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 177 Fed. 178; Callahan v. U. S., C. C. A., 195 Fed. 924; Pocahontas Distilling Co. v. United States, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 782; McClendon v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 804; Pennsylvania Co. v. Fanger, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 851; Spear v. U. S., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 250; Hale v. U. S., C. C. A., 242 Fed. 891; Panama R. Co. v. Curran, C. C. A., 256 Fed. 768. For a reversal because of a denial of an application for a continuance, see Younge v. U. S., C. C. A., 223 Fed. 941; supra, §§ 473a, 536a. It seems that the exceptions to rulings on a motion to change the venue are not available upon a writ of error, McFaul v. Ramsey, 20 How. 523, 15 L. ed. 1010; Cook v. Burnley, 11 Wallace, 659, 20 L. ed. 29. There will rarely be a reversal of a decision of the trial court upon a challenge to the favor of a juror. Press Pub. Co. v. McDonald, C. C. A., 73 Fed. 440; So. Pac. Co. v. Rauk, C. C. A., 49 Fed. 696; or of the decision upon an application for the remission of the penalty of a recognizance; U. S. v. Smart, C. C. A., 237 Fed. 978. Decisions of administrative questions in the course of receivership, such as granting leave to sue a receiver, N. Y. Security & Tr. Co. v. Illinois

3

Transfer R. Co., C. C. A., 104 Fed. 710; or determining to retain a leasehold, Mercantile Tr. Co. V. Farmers' L. & Tr. Co., C. C. A., 81 Fed. 254; or the amount of compensation allowed to counsel; see Equitable Trust Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co., 236 Fed. 814; supra, § 321a, will rarely be reviewed upon appeal. An order setting aside an award of arbitrators may be reviewed by writ of error to the final judgment in the case. Nolan v. Colo. Cent. Consol. Min. Co., C. C. A., 63 Fed. 930. It has been held that an order overruling exceptions to a master's report, because the record was not printed in accordance with the rules, cannot be reviewed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Du Bois v. Mayor of N. Y., C. C. A., 128 Fed. 418. That an order refusing naturalization is discretionary and is not reviewable by either appeal or writ of error. U. S. v. Dolla, C. C. A., 177 Fed. 101. Contra, U. S. v. Breen, 135 App. Div. (N. Y.) 824. Supra, §§ 151b, 695. The review of rulings upon the admission and exclusion of evidence is subsequently considered; infra, § 711e.

2 Leicester Piano Co. v. Front R. R. Imp. Co., C. C. A., 55 Fed. 190.

3 Mound Valley Vitrified Brick Co. v. Mound Valley Natural Gas & Oil Co., 205 Fed. 147; Farrell v. First Nat. Bank of Philadelphia, C. C. A., 254 Fed. 801; Glenwood Irr. Co. v. Vallery, C. C. A., 248 Fed. 483.

4 Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch, 11, 3 L. ed. 22; Blunt v. Smith, 7

Wheat. 248, 5 L. ed. 446; M'Lanahan v. Universal Ins. Co., 1 Pet. 170, 7 L. ed. 98; U. S. v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12, 3 L. ed. 585; Life F. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Pet. 291, 8 L. ed. 949; Doswell v. De LaLanza, 20 How. 29, 15 L. ed. 824; Warner v. Norton, 20 How. 448, 15 L. ed. 950; Pomeroy v. Bank of Indiana, 1 Wall. 592, 17 L. ed. 638; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 160, 17 L. ed. 922; Laber v. Cooper, 7 Wall. 565, 19 L. ed. 151; Ewing v. Howard, 7 Wall. 499, 19 L. ed. 293; Home Ins. Co. v. Barton, 13 Wall. 603, 20 L. ed. 708; Erskine v. Hohnbach, 14 Wall. 613, 20 L. ed. 745; Republican R. B. Co. v. Kansas P. R. Co., 92 U. S. 315, 23 L. ed. 515; Cambuston v. U. S., 95 U. S. 285, 24 L. ed. 448; Young v. U. S., 95 U. S. 641, 24 L. ed. 467; Kerr v. Clampitt, 95 U. S. 188, 24 L. ed. 493; San Antonio v. Mehaffy, 96 U. S. 312, 24 L. ed. 816; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581, 24 L. ed. 1085; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78, 25 L. ed. 550; Boogher v. Insurance Co., 103 U. S. 90, 26 L. ed. 310; Jones v. Buckell, 104 U. S. 554, 26 L. ed. 841; Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S. 3, 27 L. ed. 346; Terre Haute & Ind. R. Co. v. Struble, 109 U. S. 381, 27 L. ed. 970; Alexander v. U. S., 57 Fed. 828, 830; Myers v. Kessler, C. C. A., 142 Fed. 730; Hanaway v. Guarantee Savings, Loan & Investment Co., C. C. A., 143 Fed. 962; Bell Telephone Co. v. Detharding, C. C. A., 148 Fed. 371; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Thompson, C. C. A., 211 Fed. 889; Pocahontas Distilling Co., Inc., v. U. S., C. C. A., 218 Fed. 782; Mont

gomery v. U. S., 219 Fed. 162 (where it was contended that there was misconduct of a juror, and newly discovered evidence); Gladden v. Gabbert, C. C. A., 219 Fed. 855; (a denial of what was called a motion in arrest of judgment) S. M. Hamilton Coal Co. v. Watts, C. C. A., 232 Fed. 832; (an order vacating a judgment of dismissal and setting the case for hearing); Barrowman v. Northern Central Coal Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 906, (a denial), City of Goldfield v. Roger, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 39, (a denial of what the plaintiff in error called a motion to reconsider and enlarge the judgment). So is the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment and permit the withdrawal of a plea of guilty, when there is no jurisdictional question involved. Whitworth v. U. S., C. C. A., 114 Fed. 302.

5 No. Pac. R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U. S. 642, n, 29 L. ed. 755.

6 N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter, 143 U. S. 60, 75, 36 L. ed. 71, 80; and authorities cited infra, § 711i. But see Coughin v. District of Columbia, 106 U. S. 7, 27 L. ed. 74. In a death case, an order denying a new trial was reversed because nominal damages had been awarded. Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Co., C. C. A., 177 Fed. 399. Where the plaintiff's damages were liquidated and not controverted; but the verdict was in his favor for a less amount; the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment because of a refusal to order a new trial. Glenwood Irr. Co. v. Vallery, C. C. A., 248 Fed. 483.