Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY, 1889 — 132 U.S. 191 · caselaw · US
General
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY
132 U.S. 19133 L. Ed. 309·Supreme Court of the United States·1889
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. CHICAGO AND ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 66.
Submitted November 5, 1889.
Decided November 25, 1889.
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. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Alexander Martin and Mr. Robert II. Kern for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr.. Justice Gray]
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 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.