Opinion
No. 66.
Submitted November 5, 1889. Decided November 25, 1889.
In regard to motions for a new trial, and bills of exceptions, the courts of the United States are independent of any statute or practice prevailing in the courts of the State in which the trial is had.
Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Alexander Martin and Mr. Robert H. Kern for defendant in error.
THE case is stated in the opinion.
In this action, tried by the Circuit Court without a jury, there is no case stated by the parties, or finding of facts by the court. The bill of exceptions, after setting forth all the evidence introduced at the trial, states that "there were no declarations of law asked for, or given by the court;" and the single exception taken is to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, which is a matter of discretion, and not a subject of exception, according to the practice of the courts of the United States. In regard to motions for a new trial, and bills of exceptions, those courts are independent of any statute or practice prevailing in the courts of the State in which the trial is had. Indianapolis Railroad v. Horst, 93 U.S. 291; Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U.S. 581; Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U.S. 544.
Judgment affirmed.