Patterson Oil Co.
v.
Brodhead

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitNov 5, 1924
2 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1924)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Wainer v. United States

    …It follows that there is and can be no bill of exceptions, and that this court must determine this cause upon…

  • Suess ex rel. Suess v. Motz

    …Matters of complaint against trial judge are not open to consideration where no exception was saved thereto…

lock 2 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 4367.

November 5, 1924.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; Edward R. Meek, Judge.

Action by Susan R. Brodhead against the Patterson Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

E.J. Miller, of Brownwood, Tex. (Jenkins Miller, of Brownwood, Tex., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

H.E. Jackson, of San Angelo, Tex. (Collins Jackson, of San Angelo, Tex., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.


What is relied on as the ground for reversing the judgment in this case is the action of the court in overruling a motion for a continuance made by the plaintiff in error, the defendant below. The record contains no bill of exceptions. Without a bill of exceptions, the motion for a continuance and the court's ruling thereon are not properly presented for consideration by an appellate court.

Furthermore, the record before us does not in any way indicate that the facts alleged in the motion as grounds for a continuance were admitted or proved. For aught that in any way is disclosed, the ruling complained of may have resulted from a finding of the nonexistence of the facts alleged on the motion. The record shows no error.

The judgment is affirmed.