Smith v. Hopkins
Citations
- 120 F. 921
- 57 C.C.A. 193
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4690
Syllabus
<p>1. Appeal — Assignments of Error.</p> <p>Under Circuit Court of Appeals Rule 11 (31 C. C. A. cxlvi, 90 Fed. cxlvl), providing that assignments of error shall set out separately and particularly each error asserted and intended to be urged, assignments that the judgment is contrary to law, contrary to the evidence, and contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, cannot be reviewed.</p> <p>8. Same — Direction op Verdict — Exception—Necessity.</p> <p>An assignment that the court erred in directing the jury to find the issues for the defendant cannot be reviewed, in the absence of an exception to such direction at the trial.</p> <p>8. Same — New Trial — Review.</p> <p>The denial of a motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.</p> <p>4. Same — Rendition of Judgment — Review.</p> <p>An assignment that the court erred in rendering judgment is too general to present any question for review.</p> <p>5. Same — Review of Evidence.</p> <p>An assignment that the court erred in excluding certain testimony, which included four printed pages of questions propounded to the witness on the trial, was objectionable for failure to set out each error asserted separately and particularly, and was, therefore, insufficient to present any question for review.</p> <p>■6. Same — Conduct of Court.</p> <p>An assignment that the court gave improper verbal instructions, followed by two printed pages of remarks by the court during the progress of the trial, some of which declared reasons for certain rulings and others regulated the conduct of the trial, to many of which remarks no exceptions were taken, could not be reviewed.</p> <p>7. Same — Harmless Error.</p> <p>Where a case was withdrawn from the jury at the close of plaintiff's testimony, remarks by the court during the progress of the trial were without prejudice.</p> <p>8. Negligence — Injury to Licensee.</p> <p>A railroad company leased land on the north side of a river, which it improved for a pleasure
Judges: Jenkins
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Savage v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1920-12-28· cited 43×
- Lahman v. Burnes Nat. BankEighth Circuit· 1927-07-20· cited 30×
- Toledo, St. L. & W. R. v. HoweSixth Circuit· 1911-11-07· cited 23×
- Tetzke v. Trust No. 2988 of Foreman Trust & Sav. BankSeventh Circuit· 1936-10-16· cited 18×
- United States v. ShingleNinth Circuit· 1937-06-07· cited 16×
- P. P. Mast & Co. v. Superior Drill Co.Sixth Circuit· 1907-05-16· cited 13×
- McCuing v. BovayEighth Circuit· 1932-08-01· cited 11×
- Empire District Electric Co. v. HarrisEighth Circuit· 1936-03-09· cited 7×
- Walter Baker & Co. v. GrayEighth Circuit· 1911-11-24· cited 7×
- Landsberg v. San Francisco & P. S. S. Co.Ninth Circuit· 1923-03-14· cited 7×
- Washburn v. DouthitEighth Circuit· 1934-10-08· cited 6×
- McDonnell v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1904-10-03· cited 6×
- Miller v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1924-02-05· cited 4×
- Murray Hospital v. RasmussenNinth Circuit· 1929-11-18· cited 3×
- Kern v. United StatesTenth Circuit· 1934-12-03· cited 2×
- Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. StrausSecond Circuit· 1921-11-23· cited 1×
- New York Life Ins. v. MelgardSeventh Circuit· 1935-01-05
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Smith v. Hopkins
2 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.