Pedrin

Beatson Copper Co. v. Pedrin

Good Law
133 C.C.A. 29·217 F. 43·4 Alaska Fed. 256·1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1415
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 5, 1914No. 2360California1,010 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

This action was brought by the defendant in error as plaintiff in the court below to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him while working in a mine of the Beatson Copper Company through its alleged negligence, which alleged negligence was denied by the company, the plaintiff in error here, in addition to which it set up in its answer the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and negligence of his fellow servants. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, the case being brought here by writ of error.

The points mainly relied upon in argument by the counsel for the plaintiff in error relate to the giving and refusal to give certain instructions to the jury, which, upon reference to the record, we find we are precluded from considering, for the reason that the action of the court in the respects complained of was not seasonably excepted to; the record showing that the case was submitted to the jury on the 11th of November, 1913, and that the defendant’s exceptions were not entered until November 14, 1913 — the bill of exceptions reciting:

“It having been stipulated between the attorneys for plaintiff and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.