Railway Co. v. Heck
Cases that cite this one
57 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Victor American Fuel Co. v. Tomljanovich (1st Cir. 1916)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Hotel Woodward Co. (2d Cir. 1921)
- Big Brushy Coal & Coke Co. v. Williams (6th Cir. 1910)
- Hatcher v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. (8th Cir. 1910)
- Bernstein v. Olian (District Court, S.D. New York 1948)
- Edwards v. Craig (7th Cir. 1943)
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in City of Baltimore (District Court, D. Maryland 1942)
- Ohmer v. Allen (6th Cir. 1935)
- Delaware & H. R. Corp. v. Cottrell (3d Cir. 1934)
- Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
- Barton v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford (1st Cir. 1933)
- Shannon v. Shaffer Oil & Refining Co. (10th Cir. 1931)
- New York Life Ins. v. Seifris (3d Cir. 1931)
- Erie R. v. Irons (3d Cir. 1931)
- O'Brien v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., of Perth (8th Cir. 1930)
- Marks v. Leo Feist, Inc. (2d Cir. 1925)
- Texas Co. v. Brilliant Mfg. Co. (3d Cir. 1924)
- Norton v. City Bank & Trust Co. (4th Cir. 1923)
- Ana Maria Sugar Co. v. Quinones (1st Cir. 1918)
- Dean v. United States (5th Cir. 1917)
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Winland (8th Cir. 1910)
- Bidwell v. George B. Douglas Trading Co. (2d Cir. 1910)
- Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Frye Bruhn Co. (8th Cir. 1910)
- Rogers v. Petrified Bone Mining Co. (3d Cir. 1908)
- Holmgren v. United States (9th Cir. 1907)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
It' does' not appear from this record that any exceptions were taken in the progress of the trial to what Was done by the court below. • Nearly three weeks after the "trial was concluded and a verdict "rendered, a motion was made- for a new trial, because of certain alleged errors in the charge; but it is nowhere s.hown that they were noted or brought to the attention of .the-.court before the verdict. Certainly no exceptions were taken. A trial court may, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, grant a new trial, if. convinced that its charge was wrong, even though its attention was not called to the error' complained of before the case was finally submitted to the jury. But not so with. us. . Our power is confined to exception's actually taken at the trial. The theory of a bill of exceptions is that it states what occurred while the trial was going on. Time is usually given tp put what was done, into an appropriate form for the. record;- but, unless objection was!made and exception taken before the verdict, no case is presented for a review here of. the rulings at the trial. This' has been settled in this court since Walton v. United States, 9 Wheat. 651. The cases are numerous to that effect.
We have uniformly held that, as' a motion for new trial in the courts of the United States is addressed to the. discretion of the court that tried the cause, the action of that court in granting or refusing to grant such a motion cannot be assigned for error here. Schuchardt v. Allens, 1 Wall. 359; Insurance Company v. Barton, 13 id. 603.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.