FLAHRITY v. UNION PAC. RY. CO.

FLAHRITY v. UNION PAC. RY. CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. July 10, 1893.) No. 243. Federal Courts — Circuit Court of Appeals — Assignment op Errors — Time op Piling. ' In pursuance of rule 11 of the circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, requiring an assignment of errors to he filed with the petition for the writ of error or appeal, and declaring that errors not assigned, according to this rule will he disregarded, that court will not review a judgment when the assignment of errors has not heen filed until after tlio writ of error was allowed, nor until more than six months after the judgment was rendered. U. S. v. Goodrich, 54 Ped. Eep. 21, followed. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. Affirmed. Statement by SANBORN7*, Circuit Judge: David Plahrity, the plaintiff in error, brought an action against the Union Pacific Kailway Company, the defendant in error, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have heen caused hy the negligence of the defendant. A trial was had, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. To reverse this judgment the plaintiff sued out this writ of error. The judgment was rendered July 21, 1892. The writ of error was issued and filed December 6, 1892. The assignment of errors was filed January 24, 1893. No assignment of errors was filed before that date. A. B. McKinley, (Hugh Butler, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error. Willard Teller, (H. M. Orahood, E. B. Morgan, and J. M. Thurston, on the brief,) for defendant in error. Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and SHIKAS and THAYER, District Judges. / [MAJORITY — SANBORN*, Circuit Judge,] SANBORN*, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts,) The assignment of errors in ■ this case was not filed until after the writ of error was allowed, nor until after six months from the rendition of the judgment. Consequently, there are no errors for this court to consider, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs, under the authority of U. S. v. Goodrich, 54 Fed. Rep. 21.