Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

8

9

sider a motion for a new trial upon the ground that it has no power so to do," or improperly refuses to consider affidavits upon such a motion, or grants a new trial when it has no power to act upon the motion, the decision may be reviewed by a writ of error. A decree upon a bill in the nature of a bill of review, which set aside a previous decree, was reversed upon appeal.10 The opening of a default is not subject to revision in the appellate court.11 A refusal to open a default is not the subject of review; except possibly, in case of a gross abuse of discretion.12 An order directing a compulsory nonsuit or a dismissal of a complaint 13 may be reviewed by writ of error to the final judgment.14 Except on writs of error to review the judgment of a State court,15 there can be no reversal for error in sustaining,16 or refusing to entertain or overruling, a plea in abatement other than a plea to the jurisdiction.17

§ 711c. Review of findings of fact. A Federal court of error cannot set aside the verdict of a jury in an action at common law as against the weight of evidence, when there was any evidence in support thereof; 1 since this would be an infringement

7 Felton v. Spiro, C. C. A., 78 Fed. 576.

8 Clyde Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 140, 147, 36 L. ed. 917, 920; Dwyer v. U. S., 170 Fed. 160, supra, $ 478.

9 City of Manning v. German Ins. Co., C. C. A., 107 Fed. 52, 54; Nelson et al. v. Meehan et al., C. C. A., 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 374, 155 Fed. 1.

10 Hendryx v. Perkins, C. C. A., 114 Fed. 801. An order refusing leave to file a bill of review is appealable. Board of Councilmen of Frankfort v. Deposit Bank, C. C. A., 124 Fed. 18.

11 U. S. v. Estudillo, 1 Wall. 710, 17 L. ed. 702; McAllister v. Kuhn, 96 U. S. 87, 24 L. ed. 615, Newcomb v. Burbank, 159 Fed. 569.

12 Metropolitan St. Ry. Co. v. Davis, C. C. A., 112 Fed. 633; Dexter v. Kelles, C. C. A., 113 Fed. 48.

13 Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's P. C. Co., 139 U. S. 24, 39, 35 L. ed. 55, 61; Southern Pac. Co. v. Kelley, C. C. A., 187 Fed. 937.

14 Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Pet. 469, 7 L. ed. 224; Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman's P. C. Co., 139 U. S. 24, 39, 35 L. ed. 55, 61.

15 But see O'Neil v. Wolcott Min. Co., C. C. A., 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 200, 174 Fed. 527.

16 U. S. R. S., § 1011, Comp. St., § 1901; Marinette Sawmill Co. v. Scofield, C. C. A., 174 Fed. 562.

17 U. S. R. S., § 1011, Comp. St., 1901; Wilder v. U. S., C. C. A., 143 Fed. 433.

§ 711c. 1 Wilson v. Everett, 139 U. S. 616, 35 L. ed. 286; N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Winter's Adm'r, 143 U. S. 60, 75, 36 L. ed. 71, 80; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bigger, 239 U. S. 330; Toledo Newspaper

of the Seventh Amendment which secures to the plaintiff the right of trial by jury. The consent of the parties cannot authorize this to be done. Findings of fact in equity and admiralty upon conflicting evidence taken orally, will rarely be set aside upon appeal; especially when two courts have concurred therein, or when they confirm findings of fact made by a master or referee upon oral testimony taken before him; 7 but

Co. v. U. S., 247 U. S. 402 (the tendency of a publication); O'Donnell v. N. Y. Transp. Co., C. C. A., 187 Fed. 109; Devine v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 194 Fed. 861; Canadian Northern Ry. Co. v. Akre, C. C. A., 200 Fed. 955. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Corsi, C. C. A., 229 Fed. 381; Carolina, C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Stroup, C. C. A., 239 Fed. 75.

2 Slocum v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364; Union Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 219 Fed. 427.

3 Sierra Land & Live Stock Co. v. Desert Power & M. Co., 229 Fed. 982.

4 Harding v. Hart, C. C. A., 113 Fed. 304; Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 32 L. ed. 764; Oteri v. Scalzo, 145 U. S. 578, 589, 590, 36 L. ed. 824, 828; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 36 L. ed. 658; Monagas v. Albertucci, 235 U. S. 81; U. S. v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 247 U. S. 32; Thorndyke v. Alaska Perseverance Min. Co., C. C. A., 164 Fed. 657; Vanderbilt v. Bishop, C. C. A., 199 Fed. 420; Re Hodge, 205 Fed. 824; U. S. v. Marshall, C. C. A., 210 Fed. 595; Arctic Lumber Co. v. Borden, C. C. A., 211 Fed. 50; Lacy v. McCafferty, C. C. A., 215 Fed. 357; Tobey v. Kilbourne, C. C. A., 222 Fed. 760; Nichols v. Elken, C. C. A., 225 Fed. 689; Brookheim v. Greenbaum, C. C. A., 225 Fed. 763; U. S. v. Ness, C. C.

A., 230 Fed. 950; Gibson v. Am. Graphaphone Co., C. C. A., 234 Fed. 633; U. B. v. Grass Creek Oil & Gas Co., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 481; Bijur Motor Lighting Co. v. Eclipse Mach. Co., C. C. A., 243 Fed. 600; Schank v. Smith, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 686; Fuller v. Reed, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 158; Farmers' State Bank v. Freeman, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 579.

5 The Fin MacCool, C. C. A., 147 Fed. 123; Erie & M. Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Dunseith, C. C. A., 239 Fed. 814; The W. H. Flannery, C. C. A., 249 Fed. 349; Goode v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., C. C. A., 251 Fed. 556 (size and age). 6 Dun V. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n, 209 U. S. 20, 23, 52 L. ed. 663, 665, 14 Ann. Cas. 501; First Nat. Bank v. Littlefield, 226 U. S. 110, 57 L. ed.; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. R. R. Commission of Louisiana, 232 U. S. 338; Nat. Bank v. Shackelford, 239 U. S. 81; Villanueva v. Villanueva, 239 U. S. 293; Causey v. U. S., 240 U. S. 399; Eichel v. U. S. Fidelity &c. Co., 245 U. S. 102; Butte & Superior Co. v. Clark-Montana Co., 349 U. S. 12; Diamond Patent Co. v. Webster Bros., C. C. A., 249 Fed. 155. (The character and condition of exhibits).

7 Mercantile Trust Co. v. Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 147 Fed. 699; Emerson & Norris Co. v. Simpson Bros. Corporation, C. C.

an appellate court may reverse them.8

In suits upon claims against the United States the findings of fact of the trial court are in the Supreme Court conclusive and the sole question is whether the conclusions of law are warranted by the facts found, unless the record justifies the conclusion that the ultimate facts are not supported by any evidence. The review of findings by the Court of Claims is previously considered.10

§ 711d. Review of questions of damages. A court of error cannot modify a judgment upon a verdict at common law by reducing the amount of damages, and directing the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant in error for the reduced amount of damages. Where the amount of damages is excessive, but capable of correction by computation, as, for example, where interest was erroneously allowed, or erroneously computed, the usual practice is not to reverse absolutely, but to

A., 214 Fed. 572; Poff v. Adams, Payne & Gleaves, 226 Fed. 187; Barber v. Columbia Chemical Co., C. C. A., 228 Fed. 476; Rutan v. Johnson & Johnson, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 369; Lasswell Land & Lumber Co. v. Lee Wilson & Co., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 322; Stephen Putney Shoe Co. v. Dashiell, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 121; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Riverside Bridge Co., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 625; Brown v. Pennsyl vania R. Co., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 513; supra, § 393.

8 Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 53 L. ed. 382, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034; Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. U. S., 234 U. S. 167 (Admiralty); The Fin MacCool, 147 Fed. 123; Alexander v. Redmond, C. C. A., 180 Fed. 92; U. S. v. Cantini, C. C. A., 212 Fed. 925, (a hearing upon bill in answer); Re Heilbron Bros., 226 Fed. 803 (inferences of fact); Davis v. Anderson-Tully Co., C. C. A., 252 Fed. 681.

9 U. S. v. Buffalo Pitts Co., 234 U. S. 228.

10 Supra, §§ 686, 690.

§ 711d. 1 Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U. S. 22, 33 L. ed. 110. The court of error will rarely review an award of counsel fees assessed by the trial judge under statutory authority. S. E. Hendricks Co. v. Thomas Pub. Co., C. C. A., 242 Fed. 37; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Minds, C. C. A., 243 Fed. 53. See supra, §§ 416a, 416b.

2 Van Boskerck v. Torbert, C. C. A., 184 Fed. 419; A. J. Huebel Co. v. Leaper, C. C. A., 188 Fed. 769; Breakwater Co. v. Donovan, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 340; Universal Trans. Co. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Omie, C. C. A, 250 Fed. 400.

3 Washington & Georgetown R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 590, 37 L. ed. 284, 291.

4 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, C. C. A., 54 Fed. 474, 481.

direct that the judgment be reversed unless the defendant in error files in the court below a remittitur of the excessive interest and produces a certified copy of the same to the court of review at the same term. If the pleadings and the verdict clearly afford the means of distinguishing the invalid part of the plaintiff's claim from the rest, the Supreme Court or the Circuit Court of Appeals may do the same; but otherwise it seems that neither of these courts can reverse a judgment at common law upon a verdict because of excessive damages when there is no exception to any ruling at the trial upon the subject," and the

5 Washington & G. R. Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 590, 37 L. ed. 284, 291; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, C. C. A., 54 Fed. 474; Hansen v. Boyd, 161 U. S. 397, 411, 40 L. ed. 746, 751; Koenigsberger v. R. S. Ins. Co., 158 U. S. 41, 53, 39 L. ed. 889, 893. In a case under Federal Employers' Liability Act where it appeared that the jury were not properly instructed as to the rule of damages if contributory negligence appeared; the Circuit Court of Appeals directed a reversal unless the plaintiff should file within thirty days a stipulation in due form to accept two-thirds of the damages awarded. Pennsylvania Co. v. Sheeley, C. C. A., 221 Fed. 901, 906. Formerly the Supreme Court of a Territory might enter an order directing that a judgment be reversed and a new trial had, unless the defendant in error stipulated to remit a specified portion of the damages, and that if he did so remit the judgment be affirmed. Hopkins v. Orr, 124 U. S. 510; Arkansas Val. L. & C. Co. v. Mann, 130 U. S. 69, 32 L. ed. 854. Not allowed in Chesbrough v. Woodworth, C. C. A., 195 Fed. 875, 887. 6 Bank of Kentucky v. Ashley, 2 Pet. 327, 7 L. ed. 440. But see Wil

6

son v. Everett, 139 U. S. 616, 35 L. ed. 286.

7 Wilson v. Everett, 139 U. S. 616, 35 L. ed. 616; Wabash R. Co. v. McDaniels, 107 U. S. 454, 27 L. ed. 605; Arizona v. Copper Queen Mining Co., 233 U. S. 80; Tex. & Pac. Ry. v. Hill, 237 U. S. 208; Southern Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 233 U. S. 80; No. Pac. R. Co. v. Charles, C. C. A., 51 Fed. 562, 580; Morning Journal Ass'n v. Rutherford, C. C. A., 16 L.R.A. 803, 51 Fed. 513, 516; Hogg v. Emerson, 11 How. 587, 13 L. ed. 824; Walker Mfg. Co. v. Knox, C. C. A., 136 Fed. 334; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Davies, C. C. A., 146 Fed. 247; Phoenix Assur. Co. v. Maryland Gold Min. & D. Co., C. C. A., 146 Fed. 501; Omaha Water Co. v. Schamel, C. C. A., 147 Fed. 502; Mann v. Dempster, C. C. A., 181 Fed. 76; Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Penn, C. C. A., 191 Fed. 682; Joplin & P. Ry. Co. v. Payne, C. C. A., 194 Fed. 387. Cf. In Duke v. Morning Journal Ass'n, 120 Fed. 860. Suravitz v. Pristasz, C. C. A., 201 Fed. 335; Black v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 218 Fed. 239; Williamson v. Osenton, C. C. A., 220 Fed. 653; National Enameling & Stamping Co. y. Zirkovics, C. C. A., 221 Fed. 184; Baltimore

damages were not liquidated; nor for inadequate damages, at least when they are not nominal, and the amount is not fixed by law. And in case of reversal for such a reason after a verdict a new trial must almost invariably be directed.10

§ 711e. Review of rulings upon evidence. In equity, "When evidence is offered and excluded, and the party against whom the ruling is made excepts thereto at the time, the court shall take and report so much thereof, or make such a statement respecting it, as will clearly show the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, the ruling, and the exception. If the appellate court shall be of opinion. that the evidence should have been admitted, it shall not reverse the decree unless it be clearly of opinion that material prejudice will result from an affirmance, in which event it shall direct such further steps as justice may require." At common law, the rule is otherwise. Upon the exclusion of a competent question which admits of an answer tending to prove a fact relevant to the issues an exception to such exclusion is sufficient to bring the error before the court of review, and no offer of proof is

& O. R. Co. v. Smith, C. C. A., 222 Fed. 667; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Willsie, C. C. A., 224 Fed. 908, 909; Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. Cauble, C. C. A., 228 Fed. 876; Thrush v. Fullhart, C. C. A., 230 Fed. 24; Southern Ry. Co. v. White, C. C. A., 232 Fed. 144. But see Bank of Kentucky v. Ashley, 2 Pet. 327, 7 L. ed. 440.

8 Denison v. Shawmut Min. Co., C. C. A., 159 Fed. 102; Donohue v. Boston & M. R. R., C. C. A., 209 Fed. 824; Worden v. Kenny, C. C. A., 239 Fed. 131. Where there was no controversy as to the amount of damages, if the plaintiff was entitled to any recovery and the court charged the jury to bring in a verdict for such a sum in case they found for the plaintiff; the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and directed a new trial be

cause the verdict was for less. Glenwood Irr. Co. v. Vallery, C. C. A., 248 Fed. 483.

9 Pugh v. Bluff City Excursion Co., C. C. A., 177 Fed. 399.

10 Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Sloan, C. C. A., 250 Fed. 712; Washington & C. Ry. Co. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., C. C. A., 255 Fed. 12; Olivier v. Mt. Union Tanning & Extract Co., C. C. A., 264 Fed. 601. See supra, § 711a.

§ 711e. 1 Eq. Rule 46. For the former practice, see Blease v. Garlington, 92 U. S. 1, 23 L. ed. 521; Shauer v. Alterton, 151 U. S. 607, 617, 38 L. ed. 286, 289. Depositions, § 352, supra. Incompetent evidence admitted by the court below should be disregarded. Anderson v. Hultberg, C. C. A., 247 Fed. 273, 279.

2 Buckstaff v. Russell, 151 U. S. 626, 38 L. ed. 292; Himrod v. Ft.

« AnteriorContinuar »