Cheney

(dissenting). I dissent for this reason:. The bill of exceptions shows that one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, and who, from the name, seems also to have been the administrator of the estate of the deceased, used this language in arguing the case to the jury: “That the defendant, the Alaska-Treadwell Gold Mining Company, was owned by the wealthy Rothschilds of England, who are gathering the wealth of this country and sending it abroad, and that, if the jury should return a verdict for the full amount prayed for, namely, $10,000,'such amount would not equal 1 per cent, of the annual income of the defendant.”

The record proceeds: “To which argument and statement the defendant, by its counsel, objected and excepted, *153 and the court thereupon sustained the objection and directed that no such argument be used, whereupon said counsel for plaintiff immediately stated to the jury that he wished to withdraw said remark and requested the jury not to consider it, and the court, both at that time and in its charge, instructed the jury that it must disregard that and all other remarks of counsel which were not borne out by the evidence.”

This conduct of counsel for the plaintiff…

The defendant in error, who is administrator of the estate of Ole Linge, deceased, was plaintiff in the court below, where he brought the action to recover damages for the death of Linge by reason of the alleged negligence of the plaintiff in error, the AlaskaTreadwell Gold Mining Company. The case was tried with a jury and a verdict for the plaintiff was returned. The defendant moved for a new trial on various grounds, and also for an arrest of judgment upon the ground that it was conclusively shown by the evidence that the appointment of the plaintiff as administrator of the. estate of Linge was void. The motion for a new trial was denied, and the motion in arrest of judgment was granted. Judgment was thereupon rendered dismissing the action, to which judgment the plaintiff sued out a writ of error and brought the case here, where the judgment was reversed with directions to the District Court to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the case for the amount named in the verdict, with legal interest from the date of the rendition of the verdict. 148 F. 808 -811. Upon the going down of the mandate the judgment here directed was entered by the trial court, and was, of course,…