The Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.

Citations

• 128 U.S. 544
• 9 S. Ct. 150
• 32 L. Ed. 508
• 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2249

Syllabus

<p>In this case a mandamus was issued, commanding the judge of a Circuit Court of the United States to settle a bill of exceptions according to the truth of the matters which took place before him on the trial of an action before the court, ■ held by him and a jury, and to sign it, when settled, he having refused to settle and sign it on the ground that the term of the court at which the action was tried had expired, and the time allowed for signing the bill had expired.</p> <p>The practice and rules of the state court do not apply to proceedings taken in a Circuit Court of the United States for the purpose of reviewing in this court a judgment of such Circuit Court;-and such rules and prac- • tice, embracing the preparation, perfection, settling and signing of a bill of exceptions, are not within the “practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding” which are required by § 914 of the Revised Statutes to conform “ as near as may be ” to those “ existing at the time in-like causes in the courts of record of the State.”</p> <p>The manner or the time of taking proceedings, as the foundation for the removal of a case by a writ of error from one Federal Court to another, is a matter to be regulated exclusively by acts of Congress, or, when they are silent, by methods derived from the common law, from ancient English statutes, or from the rules and practice of the courts of the United States.</p> <p>In this case the party tendering the bill to be settled and signed sufficiently complied with the rules and practice of the Circuit Court.</p> <p>The decision in Müller v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 219, held not to apply to the present case.</p>