Skip to content


Betts Vs. Mugridge - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number154 U.S. 644
AppellantBetts
RespondentMugridge
Excerpt:
.....court of the united states for the northern district of illinois syllabus a bill of exceptions cannot bring up the whole testimony for review whether the case has been tried by the court or by a jury. mr. chief justice waite delivered the opinion of the court. this cause was tried by the court below without the intervention of a jury. the facts were not agreed upon and there is no special finding. no exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial, but all the evidence has been embodied in a bill of exceptions, and the only error assigned is that the general finding of the court was in favor of the defendant below when it should have been for the plaintiff. we have often decided that a bill of exceptions cannot be used to.....
Judgment:
Betts v. Mugridge - 154 U.S. 644 (1879)
U.S. Supreme Court Betts v. Mugridge, 154 U.S. 644 (1879)

Betts v. Mugridge

No. 870

Submitted January 6, 1879

Decided January 13, 1879

154 U.S. 644

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Syllabus

A bill of exceptions cannot bring up the whole testimony for review whether the case has been tried by the court or by a jury.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This cause was tried by the court below without the intervention of a jury. The facts were not agreed upon and there is no special finding. No exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial, but all the evidence has been embodied in a bill of exceptions, and the only error assigned is that the general finding of the court was in favor of the defendant below when it should have been for the plaintiff. We have often decided that a bill of exceptions cannot be used to bring up the whole testimony for review when the case has been tried by the court, any more than when there has been a trial by jury. Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125, 76 U. S. 128 ; Insurance Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158.

The judgment is affirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //