Supreme Court of the United States, 1890

Fishburn v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 3, 1890 · Fuller

137 U.S. 60; 11 S. Ct. 8; 34 L. Ed. 585; 1890 U.S. LEXIS 2064 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. B. F. Dunwiddie (with whom were Mr. I. C. Sloane and Mr. B. Dunwiddie on the brief) for plaintiff in error., Mr. John W. Cary and Mr. Burton Hanson for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Murphy v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ETC. (9th Cir. 1944)
Finn v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1946)
Flint v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. (2d Cir. 1944)
Coggeshall v. United States (4th Cir. 1938)
Weekley v. Thomas (4th Cir. 1933)
Dimick v. Schiedt (Supreme Court of the United States 1935)
Connecticut Fire Ins. v. Manning (8th Cir. 1910)
Boatmen's Bank v. Trower Bros. (8th Cir. 1910)
Detroit United Ry. v. Nichols (6th Cir. 1908)
Francisco v. Chicago & A. R. (8th Cir. 1906)
Newport News & Old Point Ry. & Electric Co. v. Yount (4th Cir. 1905)
Williamson v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. (8th Cir. 1905)
City of Manning v. German Ins. (8th Cir. 1901)
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. White (5th Cir. 1900)
James P. Witherow Co. v. De Bardeleben Coal & Iron Co. (5th Cir. 1900)
Prichard v. Budd (4th Cir. 1896)
United States v. Mayer (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)
Martinez v. Paul Taylor Brown Co. (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1914)
United States v. Mayer (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)
Latchtimacker v. Jacksonville Towing & Wrecking Co. (United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Florida 1910)
Duke v. St. Louis & S. F. R. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas 1909)
Sanford v. White (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1901)
Alexander v. United States (9th Cir. 1893)
Southwestern Virginia Imp. Co. v. Frari (4th Cir. 1893)
Edge Moor Bridge Works v. Fields (4th 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

Fuller, C. J.

This is an action for damages brought by plaintiff in error against defendant in error for wrongfully ejecting her from one of its passenger trains, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of defendant in error.

In regard to motions for new trial and bills of exceptions, courts of the United States are independent of any statute or *61 practice prevailing in the courts of the State in which the trial is had. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co., 132 U. S. 191.

Mr. B. F. Dunwiddie (with whom were Mr. I. C. Sloane and Mr. B. Dunwiddie on the brief) for plaintiff in error. Mr. John W. Cary and Mr. Burton Hanson for defendant in error.

The only exception in respect to which plaintiff assigns error here was to the overruling of her motion for a new trial, which is not the subject of exception, according to the practice of the courts of the United States.

Various objections to the charge of the court were set out as grounds for the motion for new trial, but it nowhere appears that exceptions were taken to any of these matters, save as involved in the overruling of that motion, nor does the record show that the action of the Circuit Court was invoked upon the ground that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict.

Our right of review is limited to questions of law appearing on the face of the record, and we find none such presented here.

The judgment must therefore be Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.