Price v. Pankhurst
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gordon v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923)
- United States v. Siden (D. Minn. 1923)
- Rumely v. United States (2d Cir. 1923)
- Alverson v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. (9th Cir. 1916)
- Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Leach (6th Cir. 1909)
- Union Pac. R. v. Thomas (8th Cir. 1907)
- Armour Packing Co. v. United States (8th Cir. 1907)
- Greene v. United States (5th Cir. 1907)
- Webb v. National Bank of Republic of Chicago (8th Cir. 1906)
- Hodge v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co. (8th Cir. 1903)
- H. D. Williams Cooperage Co. v. Scofield (8th Cir. 1903)
- Teller v. United States (8th Cir. 1902)
- Repauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hardware Co. (8th Cir. 1900)
- Western Assur. Co. of Toronto v. Polk (8th Cir. 1900)
- New Dunderberg Min. Co. v. Old (8th Cir. 1899)
- New England Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Catholicon Co. (8th Cir. 1897)
- St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Spencer (8th Cir. 1895)
- Masonic Ben. Ass'n v. Lyman (7th Cir. 1894)
- United States Sugar Refinery v. Providence Steam & Gas Pipe Co. (7th Cir. 1894)
- Baggs v. Martin (8th Cir. 1901)
- Bracken v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (8th Cir. 1893)
- What Cheer Coal Co. v. Johnson (8th Cir. 1893)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This action was brought to recover the possession of a portion of the “Puzzle” lode mining claim. There were a verdict and judgment below for the plaintiffs, and the defendant sued out this writ of error. The only assignments of error relied on are based on the charge of the court to the jury. The charge covers five closely printed pages in the record, and deals with the law. and facts of the case applicable to the varying claims of the parties.
‘•The judges oí tlie circuit and district courts shall not allow any bill of exceptions which shall contain the charge oí the court at large to the jury, in trials at common law, upon any general exception to the whole of such charge. But the party excepting shall be required to sta te distinctly the several matters oí law in suclr charge to which he excepts, and those matters of law, and those only, shall be Inserted In the bill of exceptions, and allowed by tbc court." Rule 10, 17 Fed. ítep. vi., L G. C. A. xtv.
This rule was designed to put an end to allowing bills of exceptions like the one in this case. It matters not that the judge may be willing to consent to such a bill. He cannot waive the rule, so far as it relates to specific exceptions, if he desires to do so. The rule is not made for the judge’s personal protection or benefit, but for the protection of suitors and the advancement of justice. It is the duty of the party excepting, to call the attention of the court distinctly to the parts of the charge he excepts to, and this must be done before the cause is finally submitted to the jury, to the end that the court may have an opportunity to correct or explain the parts of the charge excepted to, if it seems proper to do so. The practice which it has been intimated at the bar sometimes obtains of taking a general exception to the whole charge, with leave to specify particular exceptions after the trial, is a plain violation of the letter and spirit of the rule. The party who conceives the charge is erroneous in any respect, and remains silent, will not he heard to point out the error after the trial; and a general exception to the whole charge, any part of which is good law, is equivalent to silence. The rale is mandatory. Its enforcement does not rest in the discretion of the lower court. Its enforcement is essential to the proper and intelligent administration of justice. It serves to correct hasty, inaccurate, or misleading expressions in the charge; it affords an opportunity for explanations and qualifications which might otherwise be overlooked, and sometimes, by removing tbe ground of exception, prevents further litigation. It is, of course, the duty of the court to allow the parties reasonable time and facilities for specifying exceptions. There is no occasion for haste in charging a jury. ISIo part of the trial should be
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.